rovex
Apr 22, 05:41 PM
Um no, they do not break very easily. Maybe a gorilla might break it easily.
well mine sure did, and my iPad's not responding when I double click for multitasking. I'm no gorilla, it's called "wear and tear", maybe you haven't heard of it?
well mine sure did, and my iPad's not responding when I double click for multitasking. I'm no gorilla, it's called "wear and tear", maybe you haven't heard of it?
arjaosx
Apr 13, 03:19 PM
Pls look at post #94. Numbers speak for themselves and they tell me Apple won't get into TV business. Who's going to pay 2k every 2 - 3 years for a TV?
You might have inside sources at Apple, because you seem to be too sure that it will cost 2K and would only last for 2 - 3 years.
I remember people not wanting an iPad when the rumors broke out. Same thing.
You might have inside sources at Apple, because you seem to be too sure that it will cost 2K and would only last for 2 - 3 years.
I remember people not wanting an iPad when the rumors broke out. Same thing.
KindredMAC
Jul 25, 08:18 AM
They ditched all signs of the BT regular mouse!
JoshH
Aug 15, 04:24 PM
I like to see little changes in the details... I can't wait to see what else develops over the coming months.
more...
yac_moda
Jul 26, 05:04 PM
I sent Apple a long description about how to build a GPS location service into .Mac, iPods, PowerMacs, and with a proximity sensor.
This was right after the kid in NY was killed for his iPod.
Remember SJ promised a fix for this.
I wonder if the proximity sensor will be wiresless disposable earphones :confused:
As for REMOTE TOUCH I still think all touch screen actions will work best with the fingers on the BACK of the device and with them graphically and transparently reflected over the interface.
And probably the ULTIMATE use of finger laser tracking would be a keyboard that has keys with multiple depths, dispose of those shift keys ! I also sent them a suggestion for a keyboard like this but that idea did not use laser tracking, it used a new type of button :eek:
If the touch area for the hands were just flat wings on the back the swung outwards, they could also act as a support for the screen EXACTLY LIKE the traditional book holder:eek: :eek: :eek:
This was right after the kid in NY was killed for his iPod.
Remember SJ promised a fix for this.
I wonder if the proximity sensor will be wiresless disposable earphones :confused:
As for REMOTE TOUCH I still think all touch screen actions will work best with the fingers on the BACK of the device and with them graphically and transparently reflected over the interface.
And probably the ULTIMATE use of finger laser tracking would be a keyboard that has keys with multiple depths, dispose of those shift keys ! I also sent them a suggestion for a keyboard like this but that idea did not use laser tracking, it used a new type of button :eek:
If the touch area for the hands were just flat wings on the back the swung outwards, they could also act as a support for the screen EXACTLY LIKE the traditional book holder:eek: :eek: :eek:
zap2
Apr 24, 09:35 AM
This would make a possible model for Videotron and Wind Mobile in Canada and probably give Apple more carrier options in other countries also. It makes sense in a non-US Centric view.
And looking at "carrier acquisitions" here, Rogers acquired Fido ages ago, yet even though the networks worked on the same GSM bands, they still haven't merged. An AT&T purchase of T-mobile would probably take years for a merge to even occur, and a few technology changes. AT&T isn't going to retrofit T-mobile's network and change their frequencies, requiring all the existing customer base to change phones.
So even in a US Centric view, it makes a lot of sense. Basically, don't let an AT&T acquisition of T-mobile trick you into thinking this is a false rumor.
No, it looks like AT&T is going to get ride of T Mobiles 3G so make room for 4G LTE.
Its really not a bad idea....turns the purchase of T Mobile into something more then just one time growth. Also unless everyone followed Nokia with pentaband 3G devices, it would start to become a hassle.
http://www.phonescoop.com/news/item.php?n=7762
And looking at "carrier acquisitions" here, Rogers acquired Fido ages ago, yet even though the networks worked on the same GSM bands, they still haven't merged. An AT&T purchase of T-mobile would probably take years for a merge to even occur, and a few technology changes. AT&T isn't going to retrofit T-mobile's network and change their frequencies, requiring all the existing customer base to change phones.
So even in a US Centric view, it makes a lot of sense. Basically, don't let an AT&T acquisition of T-mobile trick you into thinking this is a false rumor.
No, it looks like AT&T is going to get ride of T Mobiles 3G so make room for 4G LTE.
Its really not a bad idea....turns the purchase of T Mobile into something more then just one time growth. Also unless everyone followed Nokia with pentaband 3G devices, it would start to become a hassle.
http://www.phonescoop.com/news/item.php?n=7762
more...
FloatingBones
Nov 26, 11:43 PM
this very thread and the sales thereof indicate a HUGE interest in being able to view Flash on iOS devices and no amount of BS nonsense on your part will change that fact.
The popularity of SkyFire is a wake-up call to website owners to update their media inventory from legacy Flash wrappers to HTML5.
Your implication that people would return an iOS device based on just a single feature alone is ludicrous.
Flash is either a mission-critical for people or it is not. Evidently it is not mission-critical to the owners of 120M+ iOS devices.
I've pointed out there is no equivalent of the iPod Touch from Android and therefore no reasonable alternative regardless of one's feelings about the inability to view Flash web sites.
Makes no difference. If Flash were mission-critical, they wouldn't be using an iPad.
Instead of just acknowledging that not everyone likes Steve Jobs decision to not allow Flash
We're all very clear you don't like the decision. There are plenty of Flash fanboys. If they want Flash in browsers, they shouldn't use iPhones, iPads, or iPod Touches.
The owners of 120M+ iOS devices are doing just fine without Flash. There are serious problems with Flash on laptop and desktop computers:
Too many laptop users are tired of the CPU loading and battery suck of Flash apps.
Too many users don't like that Flash alters the UI inside of the browsers: altered scrolling behavior, keyboard shortcuts that don't work in Flash, text searches that don't work with text in a Flash app.
Too many privacy advocates are bothered that Flash maintains a separate set of cookies and those cookies do not honor the privacy settings of the browser. Commercial websites are using those Flash cookies to track users.
Too many security advocates are wary of using Adobe products because of Adobe's poor track record against security attacks.
You can't competently address those serious concerns with Flash in a browser.
(hardly an unreasonable opinion to have and clearly shared by everyone who bought this app to be able to view those sites)
See above. There are serious fundamental problems with Flash on websites. There's also a fundamental problem with Flash for advertisers: more users are blocking their ads with click-to-flash blockers every day. Putting your content in Flash now decreases the odds that it will be seen by users.
Adobe understands all of this. They are providing tools to update sites from Flash to HTML5 (http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2010/10/adobe-demos-flash-to-html5-conversion-tool.html). Sites should do the same and get their videos updated to HTML5. Lose the Flash, and you'll be able to serve up your content to all browser users on all platforms.
I'm sure there's some reason you're unhappy with that solution. That's fine. You're welcome to be a Flash Luddite if you wish.
The popularity of SkyFire is a wake-up call to website owners to update their media inventory from legacy Flash wrappers to HTML5.
Your implication that people would return an iOS device based on just a single feature alone is ludicrous.
Flash is either a mission-critical for people or it is not. Evidently it is not mission-critical to the owners of 120M+ iOS devices.
I've pointed out there is no equivalent of the iPod Touch from Android and therefore no reasonable alternative regardless of one's feelings about the inability to view Flash web sites.
Makes no difference. If Flash were mission-critical, they wouldn't be using an iPad.
Instead of just acknowledging that not everyone likes Steve Jobs decision to not allow Flash
We're all very clear you don't like the decision. There are plenty of Flash fanboys. If they want Flash in browsers, they shouldn't use iPhones, iPads, or iPod Touches.
The owners of 120M+ iOS devices are doing just fine without Flash. There are serious problems with Flash on laptop and desktop computers:
Too many laptop users are tired of the CPU loading and battery suck of Flash apps.
Too many users don't like that Flash alters the UI inside of the browsers: altered scrolling behavior, keyboard shortcuts that don't work in Flash, text searches that don't work with text in a Flash app.
Too many privacy advocates are bothered that Flash maintains a separate set of cookies and those cookies do not honor the privacy settings of the browser. Commercial websites are using those Flash cookies to track users.
Too many security advocates are wary of using Adobe products because of Adobe's poor track record against security attacks.
You can't competently address those serious concerns with Flash in a browser.
(hardly an unreasonable opinion to have and clearly shared by everyone who bought this app to be able to view those sites)
See above. There are serious fundamental problems with Flash on websites. There's also a fundamental problem with Flash for advertisers: more users are blocking their ads with click-to-flash blockers every day. Putting your content in Flash now decreases the odds that it will be seen by users.
Adobe understands all of this. They are providing tools to update sites from Flash to HTML5 (http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2010/10/adobe-demos-flash-to-html5-conversion-tool.html). Sites should do the same and get their videos updated to HTML5. Lose the Flash, and you'll be able to serve up your content to all browser users on all platforms.
I'm sure there's some reason you're unhappy with that solution. That's fine. You're welcome to be a Flash Luddite if you wish.
appie57
Apr 11, 04:24 PM
http://idisk.me.com/appie57/Public/Photos/Hoekse Waard 008.jpg
more...
KnightWRX
Apr 14, 04:30 AM
It would be interesting to compare Fibre Channel with Thunderbolt. Apart from TB integrating video, TB looks a lot like an evolution of Fibre Channel.
Hum, you have no idea what Fiber channel is if you seriously claim that. Fiber channel is a networking protocol for storage essentially, Thunderbolt is a host based technology. Call me when Thunderbolt can be switched, redundant, do LUN provisioning and can be extended over a MAN to offer multi-site storage.
Hum, you have no idea what Fiber channel is if you seriously claim that. Fiber channel is a networking protocol for storage essentially, Thunderbolt is a host based technology. Call me when Thunderbolt can be switched, redundant, do LUN provisioning and can be extended over a MAN to offer multi-site storage.
Keleko
Apr 12, 04:29 PM
I have very limited time for pictures this week. I'm taking what easy ones I can and going with it. This is my son on his "new to him" bike. It was found abandoned in Florida by my parents a few years ago. My son is finally big enough for it, and my dad cleaned it up for him last week.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5301/5614560090_c20410cd11_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/22077805@N07/5614560090/in/photostream)
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5301/5614560090_c20410cd11_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/22077805@N07/5614560090/in/photostream)
more...
Intell
Apr 26, 01:09 PM
Just a quick note: The hunter cannot protect against infections. There is no night watch. The night time lasts until I get all the needed PMs or 24 hours. Whichever comes first.
Krafty
Jan 27, 09:30 AM
Returned the Powerbeats by Dre and got Phillips SHQ3007.
http://lulzimg.com/i10/e9ae38.jpg
http://lulzimg.com/i10/e9ae38.jpg
more...
RiverFox
Oct 4, 09:01 PM
A few things...
I've also had Verizon now for 4 years, and I've maybe during that time had 2 dropped calls. Not bad for 4 years of service.
As a consumer, when is 30% failure rate, acceptable?
And then these femtocells. If they (the provider) can't give you access you're paying for, is it really fair that they charge you on top of what you're already paying, to sell you a device that is supposed to boost the service you're already paying for?
:confused:
I've also had Verizon now for 4 years, and I've maybe during that time had 2 dropped calls. Not bad for 4 years of service.
As a consumer, when is 30% failure rate, acceptable?
And then these femtocells. If they (the provider) can't give you access you're paying for, is it really fair that they charge you on top of what you're already paying, to sell you a device that is supposed to boost the service you're already paying for?
:confused:
Pegamush
Mar 31, 12:31 PM
i'd love if every application would have a different "top bar" color. that would be great for fast recognition/switching between apps,
e.g:
blue/green itunes,
gray safari
violet mail
leather ical
ecc..
i'm just guessing
e.g:
blue/green itunes,
gray safari
violet mail
leather ical
ecc..
i'm just guessing
more...
logandzwon
Apr 22, 09:09 AM
yeah, apple are stupid....they havnt got a clue what they are doing have they... :rolleyes:
No clue at all. Have you seen that apple phone? It is the most expensive phone in the world and it doesn't appeal to business customers!
No clue at all. Have you seen that apple phone? It is the most expensive phone in the world and it doesn't appeal to business customers!
Chrispy
Oct 24, 08:51 AM
This is great news. If the macbooks go Core 2 Duo then I will have a very difficult decision to make. Regardless I'm going to hold for about 3 weeks to see how these things work out for everyone. If they are, for the most part, problem free then I'm all over this.
more...
spicyapple
Aug 15, 09:48 PM
"Top secret" also probably means "not developed enough to show yet".
Steve's Reality Distortion Field� at work, no doubt. The man has a spin for everything!
Steve's Reality Distortion Field� at work, no doubt. The man has a spin for everything!
Christopher387A
Apr 26, 05:41 PM
No thanks Apple. I'll keep my music locally for free.
UniPro
Mar 11, 12:13 PM
Wow, 150 people at Brea? That's nuts. I got mine at South Coast last year but that was a month after release.
Not really sure where I'm going yet. I think I may try Cerritos or a Best Buy...
Not really sure where I'm going yet. I think I may try Cerritos or a Best Buy...
twoodcc
Nov 12, 03:39 PM
i sure hope i don't lose that bigadv unit
zync
Jul 28, 11:03 AM
When Microsoft claim that their investment might not pay off for five years, they're paving the way for failure. For the next two or three years, when pressed about the lack of profits, they can claim that the payoff will be in a couple of years from then. They won't have to actually admit that they've failed until after 2010. It's not dissimilar to Bill Gates claiming that there's an 80% chance of Vista shipping on time, it sounds positive, but few people believe it actually will ship in January. It's just paving the way for the next excuse.
It's very important that Microsoft try very hard with Zune. They keep claiming that the iPod succeeded simply because of slick marketing, whereas everybody else knows that it succeeded by being an attractive proposition, combining style with ease of use. It was word-of-mouth publicity that really worked for the iPod. You can't buy that, it added massive value to the money that was spent on advertising.
So here's Microsoft's opportunity to look at the last five years of the iPod, together with three years of iTMS, take it all in and apply their 'innovation', show us the ultimate product and then spend a fortune marketing it. There must be no doubt that Microsoft must be seen to throw everything into this project. Then Steve Jobs will be delighted to rise to the challenge and delight in humiliating Bill Gates.
I really like that last paragraph, lol. I seriously doubt they'll even pose competition. There was an image that was supposedly an actual Zune player, and if it is it's already paving the road for failure.
Honestly Microsoft will fail, and it's not because they are going to take forever to show anyone anything. Microsoft will fail because it doesn't understand the demographic it is trying to produce a product for. Microsoft may cater to business and such, but in the eyes of teenagers, many of whom are anti-establishment, Microsoft is simply not cool. Not only is Microsoft uncool, it doesn't understand what IS cool.
Meanwhile, Apple is a huge corporation, and yet even people who hate large corporation love Apple. Apple knows how to market. Apple continuously sets the standard for good design year in, year out.
Steve Jobs is cool. He's funny. Most people just think Bill Gates, though simply a figurehead now, is the devil (despite that recent huge charitable donation). Steve Ballmer is an oaf. Microsoft has neither the image or the talent to fight this battle. Hell, they've even started to slowly lose the grip on the industry that once held them so dear�business computing.
It's very important that Microsoft try very hard with Zune. They keep claiming that the iPod succeeded simply because of slick marketing, whereas everybody else knows that it succeeded by being an attractive proposition, combining style with ease of use. It was word-of-mouth publicity that really worked for the iPod. You can't buy that, it added massive value to the money that was spent on advertising.
So here's Microsoft's opportunity to look at the last five years of the iPod, together with three years of iTMS, take it all in and apply their 'innovation', show us the ultimate product and then spend a fortune marketing it. There must be no doubt that Microsoft must be seen to throw everything into this project. Then Steve Jobs will be delighted to rise to the challenge and delight in humiliating Bill Gates.
I really like that last paragraph, lol. I seriously doubt they'll even pose competition. There was an image that was supposedly an actual Zune player, and if it is it's already paving the road for failure.
Honestly Microsoft will fail, and it's not because they are going to take forever to show anyone anything. Microsoft will fail because it doesn't understand the demographic it is trying to produce a product for. Microsoft may cater to business and such, but in the eyes of teenagers, many of whom are anti-establishment, Microsoft is simply not cool. Not only is Microsoft uncool, it doesn't understand what IS cool.
Meanwhile, Apple is a huge corporation, and yet even people who hate large corporation love Apple. Apple knows how to market. Apple continuously sets the standard for good design year in, year out.
Steve Jobs is cool. He's funny. Most people just think Bill Gates, though simply a figurehead now, is the devil (despite that recent huge charitable donation). Steve Ballmer is an oaf. Microsoft has neither the image or the talent to fight this battle. Hell, they've even started to slowly lose the grip on the industry that once held them so dear�business computing.
dba7dba
Apr 13, 03:13 PM
I don't want to join in the bandwagon of naysayers who think they know Apple very well because none of us actually do.
Instead, I'll look at how it can possibly be true.
First point: The iPhone was released amidst a sea of dumb smartphones but did this fact stop Apple from dominating and changing the market, so I a crowded market a deterrent to Apple to re-introduce TV to the world? NO
Second point: The way TV is done by current competitors and Apple themselves, is that the focus is being heavily shifted to go through the web, which of course traditional media firms don't like. But what if you have an appliance that connects the way it did to traditional networks but once contents gets in you can control it the way you want. Apple is about user experience, maybe they have developed a way to make traditional TV more fun and interactive to use.
Third point: Apple is an electronic appliance company now more than ever and have been eyeing on capturing the living room for a while now. The TV is the center of the living room and instead of plugging in on to one why not make an actual set, that way you cut out competition from more established appliance manufacturers?
Fourth point: Apple already has a game console which is considered the hub of home entertainment, it's called iPad.
So is it still impossible for Apple to bring out a TV? NO. So let's just wait for new information to come.
Pls look at post #94. Numbers speak for themselves and they tell me Apple won't get into TV business. Who's going to pay 2k every 2 - 3 years for a TV?
Instead, I'll look at how it can possibly be true.
First point: The iPhone was released amidst a sea of dumb smartphones but did this fact stop Apple from dominating and changing the market, so I a crowded market a deterrent to Apple to re-introduce TV to the world? NO
Second point: The way TV is done by current competitors and Apple themselves, is that the focus is being heavily shifted to go through the web, which of course traditional media firms don't like. But what if you have an appliance that connects the way it did to traditional networks but once contents gets in you can control it the way you want. Apple is about user experience, maybe they have developed a way to make traditional TV more fun and interactive to use.
Third point: Apple is an electronic appliance company now more than ever and have been eyeing on capturing the living room for a while now. The TV is the center of the living room and instead of plugging in on to one why not make an actual set, that way you cut out competition from more established appliance manufacturers?
Fourth point: Apple already has a game console which is considered the hub of home entertainment, it's called iPad.
So is it still impossible for Apple to bring out a TV? NO. So let's just wait for new information to come.
Pls look at post #94. Numbers speak for themselves and they tell me Apple won't get into TV business. Who's going to pay 2k every 2 - 3 years for a TV?
akac
Nov 4, 01:19 AM
Whatever dude. 2Ghz\2GB RAM\256MB Video\160GB HD and there is NOTHING instantaneous about Parallels at all. It takes anywhere from 1-2 minutes to resume a session and another 2+ minutes to suspend it. This is with multiple images, several OS X installs, and I know how to tweak Windows with the best of them.
Sounds like you're not talking about Parallels starting up, but a virtual machine either resuming or starting up from scratch. For me WinXP starts in about 15 seconds on a 2.16Ghz 2GB RAM or about 2 minutes if resuming. But that has NOTHING to do with Cocoa, QT, Carbon or what not. The difference between those frameworks in speed is in milliseconds and would have nothing to do with the above. Those would have everything to do with file writing to disk.
I can say that when Parallels has its VM Flags set to VM Cache as the primary caching logic, its disk speed is near native, but OS X apps slow down dramatically. Change that to Mac OS X primary caching logic and the VM's disk access slows down noticeably, but not horribly.
Sounds like you're not talking about Parallels starting up, but a virtual machine either resuming or starting up from scratch. For me WinXP starts in about 15 seconds on a 2.16Ghz 2GB RAM or about 2 minutes if resuming. But that has NOTHING to do with Cocoa, QT, Carbon or what not. The difference between those frameworks in speed is in milliseconds and would have nothing to do with the above. Those would have everything to do with file writing to disk.
I can say that when Parallels has its VM Flags set to VM Cache as the primary caching logic, its disk speed is near native, but OS X apps slow down dramatically. Change that to Mac OS X primary caching logic and the VM's disk access slows down noticeably, but not horribly.
jr24
Sep 13, 04:37 AM
Just got this in the mail. Cool little 4GB flash drive from Photojojo. Here's the link. (http://photojojo.com/store/awesomeness/camera-usb/)
holy crap, that is too cool! i want one now. :D
holy crap, that is too cool! i want one now. :D
