aswitcher
Aug 31, 06:06 PM
Are we going to have live MR Coverage of the event? :)
It would be pretty awesome if they streamed it live to anyone with iTunes as either an audio or video cast.
It would be pretty awesome if they streamed it live to anyone with iTunes as either an audio or video cast.
stainlessliquid
Oct 27, 02:59 PM
Considering that Apple doesnt make jack inside their computers, maybe they should be going after the other companies that provide Apple parts? I think that would embarass Apple more since I dont think Apple likes people to know that inside every Mac is abunch of PC parts.
They could blame Apple for going with those companies, that would put pressure on Apple to switch to a greener company and would put pressure on those companies to be greener themselves so they please Apple.
And yes a computer will never been totally environmentally friendly but people are managing to COMPLETELY miss the point of what they want. Other companies like Dell have stopped using parts that have certain very harmful "ingredients" since there are more than enough substitutes that work just as well and dont harm the environment. The only thing stopping other companies is cost and laziness, and considering the premium people pay on macs its actually rather absurd that Apple refuses to use environmentally friendly parts. They arent asking for the impossible and if it looks like they are singling out Apple then its because Apple is literally one of the last major companies to adopt a policy of not buying parts or recycle the things that contain these things. If Dell and pretty much every other major PC maker can use these parts and recycle then I would love to see someone try to explain why Apple is somehow incapable of doing the same. Its like if people bitched about cars polluting less but getting the same performance and having virtually the same price, do some people just like to screw the environemnt?
They could blame Apple for going with those companies, that would put pressure on Apple to switch to a greener company and would put pressure on those companies to be greener themselves so they please Apple.
And yes a computer will never been totally environmentally friendly but people are managing to COMPLETELY miss the point of what they want. Other companies like Dell have stopped using parts that have certain very harmful "ingredients" since there are more than enough substitutes that work just as well and dont harm the environment. The only thing stopping other companies is cost and laziness, and considering the premium people pay on macs its actually rather absurd that Apple refuses to use environmentally friendly parts. They arent asking for the impossible and if it looks like they are singling out Apple then its because Apple is literally one of the last major companies to adopt a policy of not buying parts or recycle the things that contain these things. If Dell and pretty much every other major PC maker can use these parts and recycle then I would love to see someone try to explain why Apple is somehow incapable of doing the same. Its like if people bitched about cars polluting less but getting the same performance and having virtually the same price, do some people just like to screw the environemnt?
HecubusPro
Sep 17, 04:27 PM
Hi people. Take a quick look at this working prototye.
http://www.cameraphonefocus.co.uk/minor_brands/pilotfishsynaptics_onyx_button.php
I understand that Synaptics is a company Apple already has a working relationship with.
It kinda gets the juices flowing when you consider the possibilities. No more crap mobiles, I hope.
Regards
Yeah, that candy bar picture has been floating around awhile. I'm just not a fan of it though. It doesn't look comfortable unless you use a hands-free device, and it seems as if all kinds of fingerprints, dust and dirt, and muck would show up way too easy on its' surface. All the pretty lights and images just make it too busy looking.
http://www.cameraphonefocus.co.uk/minor_brands/pilotfishsynaptics_onyx_button.php
I understand that Synaptics is a company Apple already has a working relationship with.
It kinda gets the juices flowing when you consider the possibilities. No more crap mobiles, I hope.
Regards
Yeah, that candy bar picture has been floating around awhile. I'm just not a fan of it though. It doesn't look comfortable unless you use a hands-free device, and it seems as if all kinds of fingerprints, dust and dirt, and muck would show up way too easy on its' surface. All the pretty lights and images just make it too busy looking.
ibook30
Sep 13, 10:16 PM
For the first time I am excited about an Apple phone !
Let's hope it projects stuff onto walls, and does the dishes too. :)
Let's hope it projects stuff onto walls, and does the dishes too. :)
jeff33702
Mar 23, 05:22 PM
If any of you had ever lost someone or had someone that you loved seriously injured by a drunk driver - you'd want this app pulled.
0 good can come from drunk driving. I don't know anyone (intelligent person) who would say otherwise. Constitutional or not, who in the world would want to encourage a drunk person to get behind the wheel? ..which is exactly what these apps do. I'm sure that there's a percentage of drunk drivers who have ventured out on the roads only because they had the convenience of these apps - when otherwise, they would have gotten a ride or sobered up first.
0 good can come from drunk driving. I don't know anyone (intelligent person) who would say otherwise. Constitutional or not, who in the world would want to encourage a drunk person to get behind the wheel? ..which is exactly what these apps do. I'm sure that there's a percentage of drunk drivers who have ventured out on the roads only because they had the convenience of these apps - when otherwise, they would have gotten a ride or sobered up first.
Nicksd84
Mar 29, 01:24 PM
Lol. I wonder what the predictions were 5 years ago. The mobile world is in some fantastic times right now.
infidel69
Mar 29, 11:27 AM
Microsoft should work on perfecting windows before starting a mobile OS
Windows 7 kicks ass, it's every bit as good as Snow Leopard if not better.
Windows 7 kicks ass, it's every bit as good as Snow Leopard if not better.
smazany
Jul 14, 11:52 AM
I just bought a Macbook, what does this news mean to me? How much more powerful is Conroe compared to my own Core Duo? Can anyone direct me to some benchmarks of Conroe that are being put against the Core Duo?
JAT
Mar 30, 12:02 PM
Yes, but that doesn't matter. The word Windows is no generic IT word, while app(lication) is. That's the difference.
"Apple" can't be used to trademark a fruit, but it can be used to trademark a computer. "Windows" can't be used to trademark "windows of a house" but it can be for an operating system. "App store" can be trademarked for a brothel but not for a store that sells computer applications.
One, windows is a generic IT word. Yes, it is. That's WHY M$ named it Windows, because it was a term that described what you see on screen. Personally, I was annoyed when they called it that for their 2bit crap OS shell. Two, that doesn't matter today, M$ is not going after people for usage of "windows". Three, Apple can certainly attempt to trademark a term. That's why we have trademarks. All these arguments are circular. "You can't because you can't." Silly.
Yeah -- makes you wonder why the American Revolution ever happened. We replaced somebody who ruled by birthright with somebody who ruled by the merits of being a better lawyer. I guess you can't win. If only all political leaders could have been like George Washington who hated political parties.
Yes, military rulers have always been so wonderful in human history. :rolleyes:
I'll say it again "App Store" is a generic term, I think everyone should be able to use it.. I hope Apple doesn't win this one.. If someone used "Mac App Store", completely understandable..
See, that's really the point. Apple was the first to use this term. It doesn't matter what letters it uses, it's the combination that is at stake, here. I don't care who wins, they could certainly trademark this no problem. That's what a trademark is, if your term was so strange and unrelated to your industry, you wouldn't need legal backup.
"Apple" can't be used to trademark a fruit, but it can be used to trademark a computer. "Windows" can't be used to trademark "windows of a house" but it can be for an operating system. "App store" can be trademarked for a brothel but not for a store that sells computer applications.
One, windows is a generic IT word. Yes, it is. That's WHY M$ named it Windows, because it was a term that described what you see on screen. Personally, I was annoyed when they called it that for their 2bit crap OS shell. Two, that doesn't matter today, M$ is not going after people for usage of "windows". Three, Apple can certainly attempt to trademark a term. That's why we have trademarks. All these arguments are circular. "You can't because you can't." Silly.
Yeah -- makes you wonder why the American Revolution ever happened. We replaced somebody who ruled by birthright with somebody who ruled by the merits of being a better lawyer. I guess you can't win. If only all political leaders could have been like George Washington who hated political parties.
Yes, military rulers have always been so wonderful in human history. :rolleyes:
I'll say it again "App Store" is a generic term, I think everyone should be able to use it.. I hope Apple doesn't win this one.. If someone used "Mac App Store", completely understandable..
See, that's really the point. Apple was the first to use this term. It doesn't matter what letters it uses, it's the combination that is at stake, here. I don't care who wins, they could certainly trademark this no problem. That's what a trademark is, if your term was so strange and unrelated to your industry, you wouldn't need legal backup.
MattDell
Sep 8, 01:55 PM
I remember that SNL skit too. That was great.
"I introduce to you... iPod Invisa!"
-Matt
"I introduce to you... iPod Invisa!"
-Matt
mlochm
Sep 13, 11:34 PM
I just do not think Apple is going to introduce a cellular phone. The ideas sound great around here, but I don't see any good busness model for such a device. What is Apple going to make money on selling such a product?
everything- thats the point. It completes the picture, as SJ has said. They make money on increasing the functionality of everything. Now that you can use an iPod to transport songs seemlessly into iTunes on other computers (authorized ones...) I'm sure that this will be something of use in the iPhone- For example- if you're out and about in the world, and someone gives you their phone number, you save it to your contacts. When you get home and plug in your phone to the computer to charge, it syncs with address book. In turn, address book syncs the phone number you were emailed this morning to your iPhone. I don't even use address book but I would under those conditions. Thing I would love to see in the phone is bluetooth connectivity. as in it could be a bluetooth handset for a phone you already have. And when your contract is up with -insert your provider- you can get service with apple. That would be be nifty.
everything- thats the point. It completes the picture, as SJ has said. They make money on increasing the functionality of everything. Now that you can use an iPod to transport songs seemlessly into iTunes on other computers (authorized ones...) I'm sure that this will be something of use in the iPhone- For example- if you're out and about in the world, and someone gives you their phone number, you save it to your contacts. When you get home and plug in your phone to the computer to charge, it syncs with address book. In turn, address book syncs the phone number you were emailed this morning to your iPhone. I don't even use address book but I would under those conditions. Thing I would love to see in the phone is bluetooth connectivity. as in it could be a bluetooth handset for a phone you already have. And when your contract is up with -insert your provider- you can get service with apple. That would be be nifty.
AppleScruff1
Mar 23, 06:46 PM
How do you feel about Amazon selling "The Pedophile's Guide to Love and Pleasure" ?
jav6454
Apr 25, 01:03 AM
The simple fact is that I should not have to obey a 70mph speed limit if I don't want to. Why would I even bother driving a car that can hit 186mph (with the speed governor removed, with the governor top speed is 155mph) at 70 mph? A Ford Fiesta can hit those speeds, what's the point of fast cars if you're going to follow the speed limit in them?
EDIT: @ Rodimus - Had she hit me when I slammed on the brakes, she would have been at fault. All I have to do is tell the cop that I thought I saw an animal run across the road. She is supposed to keep enough distance to be able to stop if I slam on the brakes. Doesn't matter than I cut her off, she has to prove that I did, and she also has to prove that I slammed on the breaks with malice.
-Don
You do realize it's easy for me to prove malice on your braking? Your previous behavior just shows clear evidence. At those high speeds if she would have hit you would have flown out your window or left with a really bad bruise from seatbelt. Eiher way at that point, I could ask that you be subject to a lie detector due to gravity of the possible incident.
You are 16, reckless and crap driver. Stay off the road.
EDIT: @ Rodimus - Had she hit me when I slammed on the brakes, she would have been at fault. All I have to do is tell the cop that I thought I saw an animal run across the road. She is supposed to keep enough distance to be able to stop if I slam on the brakes. Doesn't matter than I cut her off, she has to prove that I did, and she also has to prove that I slammed on the breaks with malice.
-Don
You do realize it's easy for me to prove malice on your braking? Your previous behavior just shows clear evidence. At those high speeds if she would have hit you would have flown out your window or left with a really bad bruise from seatbelt. Eiher way at that point, I could ask that you be subject to a lie detector due to gravity of the possible incident.
You are 16, reckless and crap driver. Stay off the road.
.gif "Diagram of the Heart")
asdf542
Apr 14, 04:24 PM
No. You are confusing these with facts. I've pointed out to you each time you have made something up in my reply.LOL, and yet you still haven't given any examples.
Person 1: Thunderbolt = Mac Only True. In the same way FW is 'Mac only'. You perhaps don't understand the difference between speaking literally and effectively. Effectively, FW is considered 'Mac only' yet is available to any vendor that wants to implement it. But the lack of interest has resulted in it being considered 'Mac only'. Not literally, but effectively. See the difference?
Right, and no where was this specified at this point in the conversation. You are simply fitting it in for your argument. FireWire was not mentioned in the original post.
You: Bingo True.
Me: Post to an article showing that it won't be Mac only False. You posted an article that said others could use it. Nowhere in your article did it say others would use it. I explained this to you, but again, you missed the point. Firewire isn't literally Mac only either. I knew what article I posted and I knew what it contained and it served its purpose perfectly fine. I don't need to show you who's going to use it because it's going to be native in Ivy Bridge ALONGSIDE USB 3 as the title would suggest. There's no reason NOT to use it as the superior IO and it's already there. This isn't rocket science.
You: Claim you were talking metaphorically to save your ass False. I don't think you understand what a metaphor is, because you aren't using it right. I claimed, and the OP later explained, it was meant, in context, effectively Mac only. Seriously, this is highschool english. Wow, what a surprise. The OP decided to choose the route that served him better for the discussion. :rolleyes:
Myself and Econgeek: Explain to you why what you saved your ass with won't be trueFalse. Econogeek did well in explaining how the situations differ. You explained nothing.I explained why ThunderBolt wouldn't be another FireWire. You weren't having it and decided to pull strawman attacks.
You: Go on a rampage of insults False. No insults. Just observations. If you made a lot of spelling errors and I pointed them out, that would be an observation, not an insult. You both misunderstood posts and made up claims of statements that did not exist. I pointed that out. If you felt insulted, you are being overly sensitive.Pointing out spelling errors and telling someone that they belong on the short bus are two different things. :rolleyes: Sounds like you have some self-esteem issues if you feel the need to tell someone they're mentally retarded over an IO discussion.
Person 1: Thunderbolt = Mac Only True. In the same way FW is 'Mac only'. You perhaps don't understand the difference between speaking literally and effectively. Effectively, FW is considered 'Mac only' yet is available to any vendor that wants to implement it. But the lack of interest has resulted in it being considered 'Mac only'. Not literally, but effectively. See the difference?
Right, and no where was this specified at this point in the conversation. You are simply fitting it in for your argument. FireWire was not mentioned in the original post.
You: Bingo True.
Me: Post to an article showing that it won't be Mac only False. You posted an article that said others could use it. Nowhere in your article did it say others would use it. I explained this to you, but again, you missed the point. Firewire isn't literally Mac only either. I knew what article I posted and I knew what it contained and it served its purpose perfectly fine. I don't need to show you who's going to use it because it's going to be native in Ivy Bridge ALONGSIDE USB 3 as the title would suggest. There's no reason NOT to use it as the superior IO and it's already there. This isn't rocket science.
You: Claim you were talking metaphorically to save your ass False. I don't think you understand what a metaphor is, because you aren't using it right. I claimed, and the OP later explained, it was meant, in context, effectively Mac only. Seriously, this is highschool english. Wow, what a surprise. The OP decided to choose the route that served him better for the discussion. :rolleyes:
Myself and Econgeek: Explain to you why what you saved your ass with won't be trueFalse. Econogeek did well in explaining how the situations differ. You explained nothing.I explained why ThunderBolt wouldn't be another FireWire. You weren't having it and decided to pull strawman attacks.
You: Go on a rampage of insults False. No insults. Just observations. If you made a lot of spelling errors and I pointed them out, that would be an observation, not an insult. You both misunderstood posts and made up claims of statements that did not exist. I pointed that out. If you felt insulted, you are being overly sensitive.Pointing out spelling errors and telling someone that they belong on the short bus are two different things. :rolleyes: Sounds like you have some self-esteem issues if you feel the need to tell someone they're mentally retarded over an IO discussion.
winmacguy
Aug 23, 11:56 PM
A little-known company, and that was to create it's product. If apple buys one of their largest competitors, that will raise a few eyebrows.
Philips Electronics of Holland was one of the companies that turned down the offer to develop the predecessor of the iPod from its creator.
Philips Electronics of Holland was one of the companies that turned down the offer to develop the predecessor of the iPod from its creator.
freddiecable
Sep 13, 11:33 PM
I agree - a thing called capitalization - they have to develop an iPhone and it would be very stupid not to follow the iPod concept. That's why it takes so long I think...
But - there is nothing in this "news" that's close to "revealed"...
arn very rarely posts info from his own sources. When he does, that info is always correct. I'd bet a good deal of my savings that the iphone will look very similar to that pic.
But - there is nothing in this "news" that's close to "revealed"...
arn very rarely posts info from his own sources. When he does, that info is always correct. I'd bet a good deal of my savings that the iphone will look very similar to that pic.
dukebound85
Apr 25, 12:22 AM
You know what I hate more? effing speeders:rolleyes:
Scratch that....effing speeders who don't even have a years worth of driving under their belt and think it's safe to go 20 over
Man I wish the driving age was upped to at least 18
It's people like you who piss me off when I am riding my motorcycle as you guys are so effing unpredictable it is dangerous for everyone around you. Never mind my bike can easily outgun pretty much any car out there trying to go fast...
and you say you want to blow up cars obeying the law...unbelievable
/rant
Scratch that....effing speeders who don't even have a years worth of driving under their belt and think it's safe to go 20 over
Man I wish the driving age was upped to at least 18
It's people like you who piss me off when I am riding my motorcycle as you guys are so effing unpredictable it is dangerous for everyone around you. Never mind my bike can easily outgun pretty much any car out there trying to go fast...
and you say you want to blow up cars obeying the law...unbelievable
/rant
Jefferyd32
Apr 30, 02:04 PM
Where is the new Mac Mini update. I have been waiting and waiting to set up my HTPC.
vrillusions
Mar 23, 04:41 PM
Funny, I just read in USA Today I beleve it was, that law enforcement officers actually prefer people use the apps...saying that even if the app alerts the driver and they change their driving habits for a short time, say, slowing them down from speeding for a few miles...it's a good thing, and they encourage it.
Besides...who the h*ll is the government to tell Apple what they can and cannot do with their business? Regulations are one thing...such as safety regs and such...those are needed, but Christ...this is over the line.
This has been reported on multiple times. Even before apps certain stretches of road are well known for the speed traps they (usually) have. The result is people always slow down (annoyingly to like 10 mph UNDER the speed limit) just in case the cop is there. Same thing with the apps. People go "Oh no! a speed trap!" and slow down. Since the purpose of the speed traps is to enforce speed limits it still works for them, they just don't get any money for the tickets.
Besides...who the h*ll is the government to tell Apple what they can and cannot do with their business? Regulations are one thing...such as safety regs and such...those are needed, but Christ...this is over the line.
This has been reported on multiple times. Even before apps certain stretches of road are well known for the speed traps they (usually) have. The result is people always slow down (annoyingly to like 10 mph UNDER the speed limit) just in case the cop is there. Same thing with the apps. People go "Oh no! a speed trap!" and slow down. Since the purpose of the speed traps is to enforce speed limits it still works for them, they just don't get any money for the tickets.
aegisdesign
Sep 10, 04:47 PM
1024 CPUs??? WOW... and I thought I had nasty simulations. :o
Still, dont you think that it is a terrible waste of computing power if the app doesnt take advantage of multiple processors, eventhough it might be very hard to write such an app? This is really not my field and I know far too little to have an opinion, so take it for what it is worth.
You had to explicitly write your applications in a special parallel computing version of Fortran or OCCAM. It was exceptionally quick at matrices and vector equations so working out the weather was one of the things it was good at. They did a later DAP with 4096 processors. :-)
The point is, multiple cores are only of use if you've a task that can be split up into separate threads. Many general purpose computing tasks simply can't be multi threaded easily or at all.
On the Mac though, the main advantage of at least two cores is that the OS can run the WindowServer task, that handles all your windows on screen and generally consumes a lot of CPU when you've got 16 apps running on your screen on one CPU and your application on another and it's still nippy so you don't get the beachball so often switching apps. The second core can also be doing something like running backups, indexing a hard drive for Spotlight, hotclustering files, updating thumbnails in iPhoto.... Past two cores and you're in diminishing returns except for specific applications that can be multithreaded.
The one advantage Macs have had for a few years of course is that there is a long history of dual CPU machines. Windows on the other hand rarely has multi threaded applications. Both OS's are a pain in the arse to write multi threaded apps for though. The wisdom of BeOS's designers would work wonders with today's CPUs.
Still, dont you think that it is a terrible waste of computing power if the app doesnt take advantage of multiple processors, eventhough it might be very hard to write such an app? This is really not my field and I know far too little to have an opinion, so take it for what it is worth.
You had to explicitly write your applications in a special parallel computing version of Fortran or OCCAM. It was exceptionally quick at matrices and vector equations so working out the weather was one of the things it was good at. They did a later DAP with 4096 processors. :-)
The point is, multiple cores are only of use if you've a task that can be split up into separate threads. Many general purpose computing tasks simply can't be multi threaded easily or at all.
On the Mac though, the main advantage of at least two cores is that the OS can run the WindowServer task, that handles all your windows on screen and generally consumes a lot of CPU when you've got 16 apps running on your screen on one CPU and your application on another and it's still nippy so you don't get the beachball so often switching apps. The second core can also be doing something like running backups, indexing a hard drive for Spotlight, hotclustering files, updating thumbnails in iPhoto.... Past two cores and you're in diminishing returns except for specific applications that can be multithreaded.
The one advantage Macs have had for a few years of course is that there is a long history of dual CPU machines. Windows on the other hand rarely has multi threaded applications. Both OS's are a pain in the arse to write multi threaded apps for though. The wisdom of BeOS's designers would work wonders with today's CPUs.
ender78
Aug 23, 05:12 PM
I see Apple stock going up on this news. $100 Million is getting off easy. Could have been a LOT worse.
Analog Kid
Sep 16, 02:40 AM
This is the most credible of the iPhone rumors I've seen so far-- in no small part because it didn't have a picture attached... The feature set sounds right, the move away from doing everything from the ground up sounds right. There's a lot of companies that have put a lot of effort into building technologies for cell phones-- it would be foolhardy for Apple to think they could do everything better. Get into the market with something that innovates in one small area-- even if that's just in its support for iTunes. Once you understand the market a little better, improve on the pieces you think you can.
charlituna
Apr 11, 09:27 AM
What I don't get is why can't Apple enable any iOS device (iPod Touch, iPhone, iPad) as an Airplay target device? Obviously iOS supports it as Apple TV can be a target for Airplay from iTunes.
They could do it but AirPlay targets are supposed to have good sound and the speakers on those items do not. So it makes sense that they haven't cause the idiot masses would hear that lousy sound and think their whatever was busted.
They could do it but AirPlay targets are supposed to have good sound and the speakers on those items do not. So it makes sense that they haven't cause the idiot masses would hear that lousy sound and think their whatever was busted.
Dr.Gargoyle
Sep 14, 08:26 AM
This can be good...does look like a photo only event....but we can still hope (iPhone with great camrea ?)
Is that wise? The camera in cellphones is at best a sorry excuse. Introducing a crappy camera at photokina... I don't know
Still I would love to see the iPhone.
Is that wise? The camera in cellphones is at best a sorry excuse. Introducing a crappy camera at photokina... I don't know
Still I would love to see the iPhone.
