gkarris
Mar 26, 10:24 PM
But what's this about an iPad 3? I find that very hard to believe, since Apple clearly said that 2011 will be the Year of the iPad 2.
Probably iPad 2.5 - better cameras in 32, 64, and 128...
Probably iPad 2.5 - better cameras in 32, 64, and 128...
AppleIntelRock
Sep 16, 03:14 PM
some days i feel like a dell owner :(
coyote
Jul 30, 01:41 PM
Without the providers on board, you won't get [Retail $350, with 2 Year Plan $50] for the phone, you'll just get [Price $350].
And do you really think that this would be bad for Apple? They'll fly out of the Apple Stores, and eventually Cingular will beg to be allowed to sell them.
And do you really think that this would be bad for Apple? They'll fly out of the Apple Stores, and eventually Cingular will beg to be allowed to sell them.
Snik
Jan 8, 09:56 PM
I have just installed Sophos Anti Virus - what a mistake!
I decided to install it because I have been a long term user of Sophos at work on the corporate PC and having installed the latest OSX I saw virus checkers in the App Store and a recommendation for Sophos there in a reference for another product.
I ran a scan and a couple of PC specific malware files were found and destroyed.
Then I noticed that my Time Machine back up was struggling.
It turns out that there are issues with Sophos and Time Machine.
I moved my Time Machine back ups to a DroboFS in December I have now lost all my back ups since then.
Once I have backed up again I will be deinstalling it - bet I find that I loose the new back up then!
:mad:
I decided to install it because I have been a long term user of Sophos at work on the corporate PC and having installed the latest OSX I saw virus checkers in the App Store and a recommendation for Sophos there in a reference for another product.
I ran a scan and a couple of PC specific malware files were found and destroyed.
Then I noticed that my Time Machine back up was struggling.
It turns out that there are issues with Sophos and Time Machine.
I moved my Time Machine back ups to a DroboFS in December I have now lost all my back ups since then.
Once I have backed up again I will be deinstalling it - bet I find that I loose the new back up then!
:mad:
lsvtecjohn3
Mar 27, 03:09 AM
And how does Apple own the market?
50% of ALL mobile profits, biggest and best App store?
50% of ALL mobile profits, biggest and best App store?
finalcut
Apr 20, 05:58 AM
if the faster processor is the only upgrade, then I wont change my iphone 4 to 5 just like I did from 3G to 3GS. My wife will just wait more on my iphone 4 hehe
paolo-
Apr 9, 09:49 PM
So if the parentheses are solved first why not just put them in front? Why go through all the semantics? Do scientists purposely make it this hard when solving equations?
No, they usually write it using specialized program so you would clearly know if it's
48
2 * (9+3)
or
____48___
2*(9+3)
But really, if you see this as 48�2(9+3), I think it becomes much more clearer. Most people aren't used to see / used as a division mark other than when using two lines, not used as a simple replacement as it is for computer. But yes they wouldn't go through the trouble of rewriting an equation just to make the order of operation simpler, as that is quite easy when you work with math everyday. But they do tidy up their equations so the intent should become clear. I mean, you could type verbally an equation, this is just the equivalent to punctuation, you put a point and a capital letter to start a new sentence.
This question is purely semantics. But scientists tend to write for other scientists who have no trouble saying this is 288. But most profs I've had hate answering questions over email simply because writing equations with regular characters is crap.
No, they usually write it using specialized program so you would clearly know if it's
48
2 * (9+3)
or
____48___
2*(9+3)
But really, if you see this as 48�2(9+3), I think it becomes much more clearer. Most people aren't used to see / used as a division mark other than when using two lines, not used as a simple replacement as it is for computer. But yes they wouldn't go through the trouble of rewriting an equation just to make the order of operation simpler, as that is quite easy when you work with math everyday. But they do tidy up their equations so the intent should become clear. I mean, you could type verbally an equation, this is just the equivalent to punctuation, you put a point and a capital letter to start a new sentence.
This question is purely semantics. But scientists tend to write for other scientists who have no trouble saying this is 288. But most profs I've had hate answering questions over email simply because writing equations with regular characters is crap.
PinkyMacGodess
Apr 23, 05:11 PM
This just sold me on the high-res screen for the MacBook Pro I'm looking at.
The $250 for the 2.3 i7 probably isn't worth it, but the $100 for the screen upgrade apparently will be...
The $250 for the 2.3 i7 probably isn't worth it, but the $100 for the screen upgrade apparently will be...
gnasher729
Apr 7, 11:55 AM
And just how could Apple be found to be absuing its position by buying what it needs to supply its customers whith product? Maybe if the iPad wasn't selling all that well but Apple can't keep up with demand as it is. Arguments like yours don't even make sense and I'll bet you some serious money that no one can produce a single instance of a company "found to be abusing its position" by buying what its needs to produce and sell its products. It would appear people like you are just angry that Apple is successful and want to take it down somehow. Stupid, just stupid.
The critical question would be: In the contract between Apple and the manufacturer, is there any clause that stops the manufacturer from selling to other companies? That would be anti-competitive. If a manufacturer says "RIM offered us $100 a piece for one million screens", and Apple says "We'll give you $110 for each" and RIM can't get the screens, that would be fine. If the manufacturer says "we can make 2 million screens a month" and Apple says "Ok, we'll buy 2 million screens a month", that is fine. If Apple says "Ok, we'll buy all you can build up to 3 million screens a month", that is fine. If Apple says "We'll buy 2 million screens a month, and you must not sell any screens to anyone else", that is anti-competitive.
I see people still don�t understand what a monopoly is. Apple would only be considered a monopoly if they used their power & influence to force the component supplier to cancel or move Apple�s orders ahead of RIM�s or any other.
You confuse "monopoly" and "anti-competitive". Being a monopoly is in itself just fine. It just means that you have to be more careful what you do than other companies, because what you do could be anti-competitive. For example, Microsoft has a monopoly in the operating system market. They can't refuse to sell Windows to Dell without getting into lots of trouble. Apple can refuse to sell MacOS X to Dell without getting any trouble. And people often confuse "competitive" and "anti-competitive". Being better than the competition is competitive. If company X makes a product that is a lot better than Y's product, and Y doesn't sell anything, that is competitive. "Anti-competitive" is when X does things so that Y couldn't sell their product even if it was better. For example, if the Windows license said that you are not allowed to use any word processor other than Microsoft Word, that would be anti-competitive, because even if I had a word processor that was better and cheaper than Microsoft Word, nobody would buy it.
The critical question would be: In the contract between Apple and the manufacturer, is there any clause that stops the manufacturer from selling to other companies? That would be anti-competitive. If a manufacturer says "RIM offered us $100 a piece for one million screens", and Apple says "We'll give you $110 for each" and RIM can't get the screens, that would be fine. If the manufacturer says "we can make 2 million screens a month" and Apple says "Ok, we'll buy 2 million screens a month", that is fine. If Apple says "Ok, we'll buy all you can build up to 3 million screens a month", that is fine. If Apple says "We'll buy 2 million screens a month, and you must not sell any screens to anyone else", that is anti-competitive.
I see people still don�t understand what a monopoly is. Apple would only be considered a monopoly if they used their power & influence to force the component supplier to cancel or move Apple�s orders ahead of RIM�s or any other.
You confuse "monopoly" and "anti-competitive". Being a monopoly is in itself just fine. It just means that you have to be more careful what you do than other companies, because what you do could be anti-competitive. For example, Microsoft has a monopoly in the operating system market. They can't refuse to sell Windows to Dell without getting into lots of trouble. Apple can refuse to sell MacOS X to Dell without getting any trouble. And people often confuse "competitive" and "anti-competitive". Being better than the competition is competitive. If company X makes a product that is a lot better than Y's product, and Y doesn't sell anything, that is competitive. "Anti-competitive" is when X does things so that Y couldn't sell their product even if it was better. For example, if the Windows license said that you are not allowed to use any word processor other than Microsoft Word, that would be anti-competitive, because even if I had a word processor that was better and cheaper than Microsoft Word, nobody would buy it.
TwinCities Dan
Mar 27, 02:46 PM
Personally, I think it is a good thing for Apple to disrupt this "schedule" that we have all come to think of as a yearly update. There are no rules here, I would rather let Apple do what they think is best as far as a release schedule. If it isn't ready yet, I don't see what the point of rushing to market is.
regandarcy
Mar 27, 06:52 AM
I'm all for cloud computing as an added feature....but not as a replacement for traditional storage of media and data.
I mean, I hope Apple doesn't force people to be connected to the cloud. I think that would be a mistake. Mainly because it would force you to either have access to a wifi signal, or pay for an expensive data plan just to gain access to your media.
As it is, all the telecom companies are dropping their unlimited plans and switching to tiered pricing. I think this creates a problem for the user to freely use their content without constant fear of exceeding their data plans.
And what of people with iPod touches or wifi only ipads...who are not within range of a wifi signal....and cannot access their content as a result. That would be very frustrating and limiting. It would make their devices nothing more than expensive paper weights.
It also creates a problem for those with 3G ipads or iPhones trying to access large video or media files in their cloud I think. I mean have you ever tried to watch a YouTube video over 3G? It SUCKS! So you'd be using up tons of bandwidth on a tiered data plan for crappy quality. How is that good?
And if the iPhone 5 is the first apple device to use 4G speeds....won't that eat up even more bandwidth? Running an even greater risk of you going over your limit and being charged outrageous fees by your service provider? Be it ATT or Verizon?
I understand that the concept of the cloud is freedom at it's core....the ability to have access to your media across multiple devices without having to store it on just one...but then you become a slave to the telecom companies and their tiered data plans...thus defeating that freedom.
Plus it forces you to chose a 3G iPad or put 3G into iPod touches to make it useful.
So I get it, and I don't get it.
The original concept of the iPod was to be able to carry all your music with you. Total freedom. And that's what helped make it such a huge success. Then came the iPhone and iPad. Both equally cool for music and video. You could store all your data on them and listen or watch them at your leisure on the go.
But if you then force people to store their data on a cloud...and pay for an expensive tiered data plan to access that data...to me it becomes not so free anymore. In fact, it becomes downright restrictive and suffocating IMHO.
As long as Apple doesn't abandon the ability to store your media ON your device, I'm cool with this move. The cloud would just become an added bonus which you could use or not use at your discretion.
I just think having to be connected to the cloud via wifi or 3G to access your data is kind of annoying....not to mention potentially EXPENSIVE!
Once in awhile...ok. But not as ones main means of access. I much rather have the bulk of my music and data actually stored ON my device. Much more convenient if you ask me.
Flash drives are big enough to carry most if not all the music and video you need. Why store it all on apple servers on some big farm in North Carolina that you need to be connected to wifi or an expensive tiered data plan just to access it? Don't see the point.
Is it just me? :-)
I mean, I hope Apple doesn't force people to be connected to the cloud. I think that would be a mistake. Mainly because it would force you to either have access to a wifi signal, or pay for an expensive data plan just to gain access to your media.
As it is, all the telecom companies are dropping their unlimited plans and switching to tiered pricing. I think this creates a problem for the user to freely use their content without constant fear of exceeding their data plans.
And what of people with iPod touches or wifi only ipads...who are not within range of a wifi signal....and cannot access their content as a result. That would be very frustrating and limiting. It would make their devices nothing more than expensive paper weights.
It also creates a problem for those with 3G ipads or iPhones trying to access large video or media files in their cloud I think. I mean have you ever tried to watch a YouTube video over 3G? It SUCKS! So you'd be using up tons of bandwidth on a tiered data plan for crappy quality. How is that good?
And if the iPhone 5 is the first apple device to use 4G speeds....won't that eat up even more bandwidth? Running an even greater risk of you going over your limit and being charged outrageous fees by your service provider? Be it ATT or Verizon?
I understand that the concept of the cloud is freedom at it's core....the ability to have access to your media across multiple devices without having to store it on just one...but then you become a slave to the telecom companies and their tiered data plans...thus defeating that freedom.
Plus it forces you to chose a 3G iPad or put 3G into iPod touches to make it useful.
So I get it, and I don't get it.
The original concept of the iPod was to be able to carry all your music with you. Total freedom. And that's what helped make it such a huge success. Then came the iPhone and iPad. Both equally cool for music and video. You could store all your data on them and listen or watch them at your leisure on the go.
But if you then force people to store their data on a cloud...and pay for an expensive tiered data plan to access that data...to me it becomes not so free anymore. In fact, it becomes downright restrictive and suffocating IMHO.
As long as Apple doesn't abandon the ability to store your media ON your device, I'm cool with this move. The cloud would just become an added bonus which you could use or not use at your discretion.
I just think having to be connected to the cloud via wifi or 3G to access your data is kind of annoying....not to mention potentially EXPENSIVE!
Once in awhile...ok. But not as ones main means of access. I much rather have the bulk of my music and data actually stored ON my device. Much more convenient if you ask me.
Flash drives are big enough to carry most if not all the music and video you need. Why store it all on apple servers on some big farm in North Carolina that you need to be connected to wifi or an expensive tiered data plan just to access it? Don't see the point.
Is it just me? :-)
seashellz
Apr 7, 05:38 PM
Ha ha! Way to go Apple!!!! Kill the competition any way you can!!
Apple is doing everyone a favor saving them from the mistake of getting a RIM tablet.
thats why i love capitalism
the stupid, (RIM) by failing to plan, are planning to fail and get left behind...
Apple is doing everyone a favor saving them from the mistake of getting a RIM tablet.
thats why i love capitalism
the stupid, (RIM) by failing to plan, are planning to fail and get left behind...
wclyffe
Jan 25, 01:51 PM
I asked Tomtom support about leaving the iPhone car kit in the car at night in the winter (I live in Ohio). Here is the answer I got.
The operating and storage temperatures for the TomTom devices are as follows:
-4�F to +140�F / -20�C to +60�C
So it can withstand the extreme temperatures inside the car. The only recommendation we would like to make is to keep the LCD screen of the device away from the direct sunlight, as it might damage the LCD screen.
Sounds like they're talking about one of their GPS devices, but its probably the same.
The operating and storage temperatures for the TomTom devices are as follows:
-4�F to +140�F / -20�C to +60�C
So it can withstand the extreme temperatures inside the car. The only recommendation we would like to make is to keep the LCD screen of the device away from the direct sunlight, as it might damage the LCD screen.
Sounds like they're talking about one of their GPS devices, but its probably the same.
jonnysods
Mar 27, 05:00 PM
Take your time Apple, make it a good release. Don't put it out just to be available at the same time as the iPhone 5.
-hh
Sep 11, 09:16 AM
Apple has over 150 stores in US(or is it 250?). So is it possible if someone wants to Buy or rent a movie he just goes to any of these stores(which will have Optic fibre connectivity with the online store) and download the desired movie on his iPod/Laptop/mini taking no more than 10 minutes. Now this might not sound that great but it should definitely up the sales of iFlicks by atleast 10-15% IMO. All these stores are located in prime locations in big cities. There is a huge number of footfalls in and around these stores...It`s just a thought and it might not really be possible...
One of the more interesting comments I've seen here.
If you think about the success of iTunes, much of it has been in the "long tail" of obscure music that gets a new chance to be sold, rather than just the Top 10 (or 20) mainstream hits that you would normally find in your local record store (Tower Records, etc).
The same also holds true with NetFlix: because the customer effectively "mail orders" his movie from a centralized distributor, he has more choices than what he finds in the local Blockbuster, since their distribution model suffers from shelf space being finite inside a brick-n-mortar store.
So where is this going?
Cross the concept of using the brick-&-mortar's storefront (Apple's) the the essentially "BTO" feature for buying DVD's of Netflix.
You order your movie online, then go pick it up at your local Apple store where they've freshly downloaded (across their GB connection), burned it to DVD (with copy protections) and stuck in a jewelbox for you.
Managing your consumers to prevent friday afternoon rushes can be built into the price structure: all movies are, say, $14.99, but there's a $5 discount for 12 hour notice and an extra 'rush' $5 handling fee if you order it in-store as a 'while you wait'.
What's in it for Apple? Besides the sale of movies themselves, its one way to increase foot traffic in your stores, for anytime a consumer is in the store, there might be an add-on sale or two.
In theory, Apple could make this a rental service model as well if they wanted to, but I consider that to be fairly unlikely. Similarly, a simliar idea could be done with the localized publishing (at the Apple Store) of iPhoto books ... what all of these ideas have in common is to reduce the delay in delayed gratification.
-hh
One of the more interesting comments I've seen here.
If you think about the success of iTunes, much of it has been in the "long tail" of obscure music that gets a new chance to be sold, rather than just the Top 10 (or 20) mainstream hits that you would normally find in your local record store (Tower Records, etc).
The same also holds true with NetFlix: because the customer effectively "mail orders" his movie from a centralized distributor, he has more choices than what he finds in the local Blockbuster, since their distribution model suffers from shelf space being finite inside a brick-n-mortar store.
So where is this going?
Cross the concept of using the brick-&-mortar's storefront (Apple's) the the essentially "BTO" feature for buying DVD's of Netflix.
You order your movie online, then go pick it up at your local Apple store where they've freshly downloaded (across their GB connection), burned it to DVD (with copy protections) and stuck in a jewelbox for you.
Managing your consumers to prevent friday afternoon rushes can be built into the price structure: all movies are, say, $14.99, but there's a $5 discount for 12 hour notice and an extra 'rush' $5 handling fee if you order it in-store as a 'while you wait'.
What's in it for Apple? Besides the sale of movies themselves, its one way to increase foot traffic in your stores, for anytime a consumer is in the store, there might be an add-on sale or two.
In theory, Apple could make this a rental service model as well if they wanted to, but I consider that to be fairly unlikely. Similarly, a simliar idea could be done with the localized publishing (at the Apple Store) of iPhoto books ... what all of these ideas have in common is to reduce the delay in delayed gratification.
-hh
brewno
May 7, 04:14 PM
Mobileme is certainly worth more than free. Apple doesn't scrape your emails and other data to target adds at you a la Google.
Well, maybe they will make it free and they will make it exactly like Google.
Have you thought about that?
Well, maybe they will make it free and they will make it exactly like Google.
Have you thought about that?
Benjy91
Apr 18, 03:28 PM
Wow, an article about Apple suing someone, that has more negatives than positives?
Thats probably a first.
Thats probably a first.
matthewHUB
Nov 26, 04:24 PM
Too many buttons - if there were any more I'd think it was a Microsoft product. :D ;)
lol my point exactly... and look at the status lights! What a joke. Was this mock-up meant to be a joke, or was it actually serious? Kind of lacking in the apple-ness department (OSX aside)
Anyway... thank god at least for a new rumour. Was getting annoyed abotu having to read the 'thanksgiving sale confimed' BS.
give me an ultraportable... interface is up to steve.
lol my point exactly... and look at the status lights! What a joke. Was this mock-up meant to be a joke, or was it actually serious? Kind of lacking in the apple-ness department (OSX aside)
Anyway... thank god at least for a new rumour. Was getting annoyed abotu having to read the 'thanksgiving sale confimed' BS.
give me an ultraportable... interface is up to steve.
Apple Corps
Jul 21, 02:20 PM
I posted this very early on:
AdeFowler
Sep 11, 11:57 AM
The advantage of integrating the movie service into iTunes is obvious; it's already installed on millions of computers. Okay, it'll need an update but people love all that. I'm not so sure people want another media player (unboxed for example).
What Apple need to do is tidy iTunes up. The Library's a big enough mess with videos, PDFs, Podcasts etc.
What Apple need to do is tidy iTunes up. The Library's a big enough mess with videos, PDFs, Podcasts etc.
Benjy91
Dec 9, 06:52 AM
Im hearing so many good things about Sophos, If this is their first offering to consumers, are they offering Sophos for home users on Windows?
Im using AVG 2011 Free Edition at the moment, and haven't had any problems with it, is it worth getting Sophos?
Im using AVG 2011 Free Edition at the moment, and haven't had any problems with it, is it worth getting Sophos?
ergle2
Sep 17, 02:24 AM
Is a slim, slot loading, Blu-Ray drive even manufactured? I've seen a few tray loading externals and a tray loading internal, but not a slot loading Blu-Ray drive of any type.
No idea. Anandtech mentioned one on display at the CES 2006 which was back in January. I believe the timeframe for launch mentioned for release was 3Q06, which is now-ish.
The unit said 'Blu-Ray Disc, DVD Multi-Recorder', so I've no idea whether this means BD-ROM + DVD[+-][R/RW] or BD writable too. I'd guess at the latter as being more likely.
I still don't see it as likely to happen, except perhaps as a BTO option.
No idea. Anandtech mentioned one on display at the CES 2006 which was back in January. I believe the timeframe for launch mentioned for release was 3Q06, which is now-ish.
The unit said 'Blu-Ray Disc, DVD Multi-Recorder', so I've no idea whether this means BD-ROM + DVD[+-][R/RW] or BD writable too. I'd guess at the latter as being more likely.
I still don't see it as likely to happen, except perhaps as a BTO option.
OdduWon
Sep 15, 04:50 PM
I hope the 2.33GHz processor comes standard in the 17" since it�s the highest-end model...:D
i thought merom went to 2.66 :confused: or was that conroe?
i thought merom went to 2.66 :confused: or was that conroe?
NebulaClash
May 4, 02:43 PM
Distribution of Mac OS X Lion through the Mac App Store would of course not be a surprise
But will be greeted with outrage here anyway, just you watch.
But will be greeted with outrage here anyway, just you watch.