BlizzardBomb
Jul 27, 03:02 PM
I can't say much about the name. I'm not the first to offer it. But nothing else comes to mind that seems to fit well.
But its like ATI simply naming one of their chips ATI Radeon with no additional naming (being something like X1800 etc.). Why not something like Mac Plus, Mac Extra, Mac Express... I could go on.
But its like ATI simply naming one of their chips ATI Radeon with no additional naming (being something like X1800 etc.). Why not something like Mac Plus, Mac Extra, Mac Express... I could go on.
Drew n macs
Apr 7, 10:40 PM
On topic, I called Best Buy and was told that unless I pre-ordered before the day of the sale, I could not get an iPad 2. My co-worker walked in last week off the street and purchased one. Why the inconsistent message? I don't get it.
The same thing happened to me at bestbuy, inventory showed they had ipads available I went to the store and none available. I called a couple hours later and they said the had the 32gb available, so I trek back to BB and by the time I got there they were all gone. Interesting, I don't know what to believe.
The same thing happened to me at bestbuy, inventory showed they had ipads available I went to the store and none available. I called a couple hours later and they said the had the 32gb available, so I trek back to BB and by the time I got there they were all gone. Interesting, I don't know what to believe.
notabadname
Mar 22, 03:45 PM
iPad: 1024x768
7.76� x 6.82�
45.2 square inches
PlayBook: 1024x600
3.54� x 6.04�
21.4 square inches
7.76� x 6.82�
45.2 square inches
PlayBook: 1024x600
3.54� x 6.04�
21.4 square inches
EricNau
Aug 17, 09:49 AM
I have to say, I actually expected the woodcrest results to be better. It really shows that the G5 was years ahead of the competition. :cool:
robotx21
Sep 19, 12:51 PM
I'm kinda glad they didn't release the macbook pro's today. All that means, if they are released next week, it will be more than just a minor update :-D Here's to hoping!
bcharna
Aug 5, 10:17 PM
EVERYONE is missing something that MUST be updated A.S.A.P.!
AirPort Base Stations!
Express and especially the Extreme. The Extreme is YEARS old!!
:eek: :eek:
AirPort Base Stations!
Express and especially the Extreme. The Extreme is YEARS old!!
:eek: :eek:
Peace
Aug 5, 04:01 PM
I can't wait for Monday. I'll be working that day, so I am going to try to watch the keynote before reading any updates. I even have the Quicktime Events page bookmarked. :D I figured I would be more surprised by taking this route.
This is the first WWDC I'm really looking forward to, mainly because of what we're going to see... Leopard in action! :D
Edit: Peace, that's not entirely true. None of us know whether Apple will release Cinema Displays with iSights built-in. I'd say it is unlikely, but you never know until it actually happens.
Just an opinion p0intblank.We all have em :)
This is the first WWDC I'm really looking forward to, mainly because of what we're going to see... Leopard in action! :D
Edit: Peace, that's not entirely true. None of us know whether Apple will release Cinema Displays with iSights built-in. I'd say it is unlikely, but you never know until it actually happens.
Just an opinion p0intblank.We all have em :)
Lord Blackadder
Mar 22, 07:56 PM
As far as necessary to make it appear that he was the "last piece of the jigsaw" rather than its inventor.
Well, he'd have to be a complete novice to allow himself to be seen as the latter. But do you think that the entire international response truly originated with the US? Maybe I just don't want to believe that. :o
Well, he'd have to be a complete novice to allow himself to be seen as the latter. But do you think that the entire international response truly originated with the US? Maybe I just don't want to believe that. :o
mcrain
Mar 23, 02:59 PM
"Lying" implies intent. Are you accusing them of lying, or getting it wrong? They absolutely lied, and they got stuff wrong. I believe there was malevolent intent, and to the extent that can't be proven, there was clear reckless disregard for the truth.
Is it your position that Libya represents a larger danger to American assets/security than Iraq? If not, is it your suggestion that America should be involved in every humanitarian crisis with brutal dictators worldwide, or at least those comparable to Libya? If so, why aren't we in North Korea? Why aren't we in any number of African nations? There are many in the mainstream media and many on the left who are saying today that there are problems. Asking why we didn't go into other African countries, criticizing the coalition and the idea that this is "minimal" US involvement. I'm not claiming the left is perfect, but rather pointing out that your claim (re: hipocricy from 'the left in media') is far too broad and ignores the realities of the media coverage and congressional responses.
But I also think it's important (especially in this forum) to point out hypocrisy stemming from the left so that the Macrumors Echo Chamber doesn't keep you all in denial. I've been in these forums for a long time, and I can tell you that while some denial occurs, liberals are far more likely to be critical of the politicians they support than conservatives are.
%IMG_DESC_10%
%IMG_DESC_11%
%IMG_DESC_12%
%IMG_DESC_13%
%IMG_DESC_14%
%IMG_DESC_15%
%IMG_DESC_16%
%IMG_DESC_17%
%IMG_DESC_18%
%IMG_DESC_19%
Is it your position that Libya represents a larger danger to American assets/security than Iraq? If not, is it your suggestion that America should be involved in every humanitarian crisis with brutal dictators worldwide, or at least those comparable to Libya? If so, why aren't we in North Korea? Why aren't we in any number of African nations? There are many in the mainstream media and many on the left who are saying today that there are problems. Asking why we didn't go into other African countries, criticizing the coalition and the idea that this is "minimal" US involvement. I'm not claiming the left is perfect, but rather pointing out that your claim (re: hipocricy from 'the left in media') is far too broad and ignores the realities of the media coverage and congressional responses.
But I also think it's important (especially in this forum) to point out hypocrisy stemming from the left so that the Macrumors Echo Chamber doesn't keep you all in denial. I've been in these forums for a long time, and I can tell you that while some denial occurs, liberals are far more likely to be critical of the politicians they support than conservatives are.
Multimedia
Jul 29, 07:03 PM
this would be smart because as of right now the mac book pro doesnt WOW me over the macbook. Do you think the "core 3" will also have the same pin structure as the 2's?Core 3 is in 2009. Many things will be very different by then. You wouldn't want to upgrade a 2006 Mac in 2009.Not a chance in hell, give up the idea of upgrading your Mac already :rolleyes:
The newer Meroms that are to come out Q2 2007 will be based off a completely new socket.With Santa Rosa to boot!
The newer Meroms that are to come out Q2 2007 will be based off a completely new socket.With Santa Rosa to boot!
dukeblue91
Apr 6, 01:30 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
Motorola doesn't "get" tablets yet, but the G1 didn't sell well either. Let's look at the market again in two years, I bet it'll look a lot different.
Not if you take any one model against whatever current iPad model.
The same goes for the iPhone vs anyone else.
Motorola doesn't "get" tablets yet, but the G1 didn't sell well either. Let's look at the market again in two years, I bet it'll look a lot different.
Not if you take any one model against whatever current iPad model.
The same goes for the iPhone vs anyone else.
enil8tr1
Mar 22, 03:56 PM
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1561238414/tapose-bringing-the-courier-to-the-ipad?ref=recently_launched
Roessnakhan
Mar 22, 12:51 PM
All formidable looking tablets, it is indeed the year of the tablet, and glad they're becoming price competitive too.
citizenzen
Mar 22, 12:23 PM
Funny also that we heard a DAMN THING from the media regarding the fact that ONLY CONGRESS can declare war.
It's funny too how a GOP controlled House of Representatives found it so important to spend time debating whether to defund NPR, but couldn't find the time to debate the value of using the military in Libya.
Though, for what it's worth, I'd much rather we returned to the constitutional practice of getting approval from congress before committing ourselves to military intervention.
It's funny too how a GOP controlled House of Representatives found it so important to spend time debating whether to defund NPR, but couldn't find the time to debate the value of using the military in Libya.
Though, for what it's worth, I'd much rather we returned to the constitutional practice of getting approval from congress before committing ourselves to military intervention.
Bill McEnaney
Apr 27, 12:54 PM
Where's the extremism?
Would you call someone a moderate when he would leave a baby alone in a room to die after the baby had survived an abortion? Most people here already know that I'm against the stimulus and against "gay" rights. As for the stimulus packages, Ford just reported a profit, and that company refused the stimulus money. If a company is going to fail let it do that. Let it take responsibility for its own blunders. Don't let a codependent government rescue it. If John Huntsman, Sr. ran for President, I'd vote instantly for him, partly because he's one of the most honest men I know of. My first question about a potential presidential candidate is, How morally virtuous is he? For me to vote for a candidate, he needs to be conservative fiscally and socially, especially socially.
I think that social conservatism implies, or should imply, fiscal conservatism. I say that partly because I believe Obama's statist policies would have the U.S. Government take moral responsibilities that individuals should take instead. I advocate the principle of subsidiarity that tells me that a problem should be solved by the people who are closest to it. If I need help, I first go to my family. If my family can't help me, I go to me friends. If my friends can't help me, I ask my neighbors for help, etc. Government should be a last resort.
Would you call someone a moderate when he would leave a baby alone in a room to die after the baby had survived an abortion? Most people here already know that I'm against the stimulus and against "gay" rights. As for the stimulus packages, Ford just reported a profit, and that company refused the stimulus money. If a company is going to fail let it do that. Let it take responsibility for its own blunders. Don't let a codependent government rescue it. If John Huntsman, Sr. ran for President, I'd vote instantly for him, partly because he's one of the most honest men I know of. My first question about a potential presidential candidate is, How morally virtuous is he? For me to vote for a candidate, he needs to be conservative fiscally and socially, especially socially.
I think that social conservatism implies, or should imply, fiscal conservatism. I say that partly because I believe Obama's statist policies would have the U.S. Government take moral responsibilities that individuals should take instead. I advocate the principle of subsidiarity that tells me that a problem should be solved by the people who are closest to it. If I need help, I first go to my family. If my family can't help me, I go to me friends. If my friends can't help me, I ask my neighbors for help, etc. Government should be a last resort.
MrCrowbar
Jul 20, 08:25 AM
Would be a very long keynote too:
- release date of 10.5 revealed - possibly more stuff revealed
- new software (considerable update to iWork if the rumours are true)
- iMac/MacBook updates
- iPod/iTunes stuff
And one more thing: The Auad PowerMac has been the fastest Mac until today. I present to you the new Octa Mac Pro!"
- release date of 10.5 revealed - possibly more stuff revealed
- new software (considerable update to iWork if the rumours are true)
- iMac/MacBook updates
- iPod/iTunes stuff
And one more thing: The Auad PowerMac has been the fastest Mac until today. I present to you the new Octa Mac Pro!"
citizenzen
Mar 22, 08:28 PM
Plenty of time to move ships into the area if only on a just in case basis.
Enough time to move diplomatically as well?
Enough time to move diplomatically as well?
~Shard~
Jul 14, 02:33 PM
Maybe one of the drives will be Blu-Ray.
... and the other one HD-DVD! :eek: ;) :D
... and the other one HD-DVD! :eek: ;) :D
0815
Apr 6, 04:13 PM
debacle? The debacle that's sucking 51% of the profit in the entire smartphone industry? http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2011/01/31/apple-is-still-sucking-most-of-the-profit-out-of-the-mobile-phone-business/
Market share isn't everything.
B
Finally someone who gets it ....
Some smart-phone OS providers pay companies to put their OS on the devices (not good for profit) and others gain a big market share without making any money.
But at the end - those are all companies that need to make money. And who wins at the end of the day: Whoever makes most money. Market share might be good for some sort of reputation and bragging rights - but if it doesn't bring any money into the bank it is good for nothing. Those are not charities - those are busnisses that have to face at the end of the day the share holders.
So it also doesn't matter if Xoom sells only 100.000 Units and Apple sells many millions. The Xoom would still be a win if it would bring more money home (but this is where the true fail of the Xoom is)
Market share isn't everything.
B
Finally someone who gets it ....
Some smart-phone OS providers pay companies to put their OS on the devices (not good for profit) and others gain a big market share without making any money.
But at the end - those are all companies that need to make money. And who wins at the end of the day: Whoever makes most money. Market share might be good for some sort of reputation and bragging rights - but if it doesn't bring any money into the bank it is good for nothing. Those are not charities - those are busnisses that have to face at the end of the day the share holders.
So it also doesn't matter if Xoom sells only 100.000 Units and Apple sells many millions. The Xoom would still be a win if it would bring more money home (but this is where the true fail of the Xoom is)
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 :)
manu chao
Apr 27, 08:56 AM
No they won't. They're not going to delete the DB - they're only storing a week. Did you read the story?
And assume you go to a place you have been a month ago, wouldn't having the database speed things up when you return to that location a month later?
(Though I agree the effect will be very minor, as soon as you land with a plane, the iPhone will start populating that database, thus having the data from a month ago will only be relevant if you need location data right away after landing.)
And assume you go to a place you have been a month ago, wouldn't having the database speed things up when you return to that location a month later?
(Though I agree the effect will be very minor, as soon as you land with a plane, the iPhone will start populating that database, thus having the data from a month ago will only be relevant if you need location data right away after landing.)
err404
Apr 25, 03:05 PM
Do you know this for certain?
As far as I'm concerned, I am pretty sure apple does track this information. Why else force everyone that wants to use apples devices to agree to this in their TOU?
Of course I can't prove it, but I'm not the one making the claim of malicious intent. The burden is on you. I see a legitimate use for this data being cached locally on my device, and have seen no reason to suspect that it is being used for anything else.
Sorry, but thats b.s.
The i-devices query apple's db to match SID and geolocation, not the local dump... and apart from that, you wouldnt have to log SID's more than once and certainly not with include the timestamp each time.
I looked at the data on my phone, and the data for each spot is not logged more then once. As for the time stamp, they need some means of determining the freshness of the data.
given past vulnerabilities of iOS via the pdf rendering and major security flaws in safari, this scenario is far more likely than you make it sound.
I agree that it's an issue that needs to be addressed. However I would be far more worried about the flaw that allowed access then I would about my cell tower cache getting into the wild.
two wrongs dont make a right.
that said, the provider has no technical means to log more detailed location data than apple. they use the same methods if triangulation and unlike apple have no access to SID signal strength and GPS data.
The cell providers log each tower that you connect to. you iPhone only logs new towers (plus periodic updates). Due to this, the log on your phone is not very useful for analyzing trends in location or your whereabouts at a specific time.
As far as I'm concerned, I am pretty sure apple does track this information. Why else force everyone that wants to use apples devices to agree to this in their TOU?
Of course I can't prove it, but I'm not the one making the claim of malicious intent. The burden is on you. I see a legitimate use for this data being cached locally on my device, and have seen no reason to suspect that it is being used for anything else.
Sorry, but thats b.s.
The i-devices query apple's db to match SID and geolocation, not the local dump... and apart from that, you wouldnt have to log SID's more than once and certainly not with include the timestamp each time.
I looked at the data on my phone, and the data for each spot is not logged more then once. As for the time stamp, they need some means of determining the freshness of the data.
given past vulnerabilities of iOS via the pdf rendering and major security flaws in safari, this scenario is far more likely than you make it sound.
I agree that it's an issue that needs to be addressed. However I would be far more worried about the flaw that allowed access then I would about my cell tower cache getting into the wild.
two wrongs dont make a right.
that said, the provider has no technical means to log more detailed location data than apple. they use the same methods if triangulation and unlike apple have no access to SID signal strength and GPS data.
The cell providers log each tower that you connect to. you iPhone only logs new towers (plus periodic updates). Due to this, the log on your phone is not very useful for analyzing trends in location or your whereabouts at a specific time.
KnightWRX
Apr 20, 02:11 PM
Of course, had the case been deemed totally unfounded by Apple Legal and their bunch of advisors, it wouldn't have been brought to court at all.
At the same time, if there is any chance that the case has some merit, a company will sue for sure, if points 1 and 2 above are not considered to do more damage than good.
There is probably some merit to some of the claims, so are probably more ambitious and some are probably completely sure to get thrown out. The thing is, the more claims they throw in there the better they have a footing for eventual settlement negotiations.
Just like you never open with your lowest price, you never open with only the claims you are 100% sure are going to win. ;)
At the same time, if there is any chance that the case has some merit, a company will sue for sure, if points 1 and 2 above are not considered to do more damage than good.
There is probably some merit to some of the claims, so are probably more ambitious and some are probably completely sure to get thrown out. The thing is, the more claims they throw in there the better they have a footing for eventual settlement negotiations.
Just like you never open with your lowest price, you never open with only the claims you are 100% sure are going to win. ;)
robbyx
Apr 25, 04:29 PM
Normally I would argue that the customer doesn't have a right to a lot of things. But in this case - if you bought a device and it is tracking you (I'm not saying it is or it isn't) - the customer does have a right to know.
This (sort of) reminds me of how now your are legally allowed to get a free credit report once a year to determine whether or not it's correct. Companies used to make a fortune charging for something that people, inherently had the right to know.
Where does these RIGHTS you speak of come from? Frankly, I don't know if it's a right or not, but I hear the word "right" used a lot these days by people who have no idea what it means.
Much ado about nothing.
This (sort of) reminds me of how now your are legally allowed to get a free credit report once a year to determine whether or not it's correct. Companies used to make a fortune charging for something that people, inherently had the right to know.
Where does these RIGHTS you speak of come from? Frankly, I don't know if it's a right or not, but I hear the word "right" used a lot these days by people who have no idea what it means.
Much ado about nothing.
