-aggie-
May 4, 01:45 PM
So what are our choices? We are in a hallway right now, I believe. So we can choose to explore the hallway or do we choose to go through another door and explore that room?
I'd think we'd want to explore this room.
I'd think we'd want to explore this room.
nuckinfutz
May 7, 10:00 AM
Mobileme is certainly worth more than free. Apple doesn't scrape your emails and other data to target adds at you a la Google.
I could see Apple making some features of Mobileme free. I don't think they're just going kill a revenue stream but they could offer a basic free Mobileme account which gives you.
A me.com email address with 5 aliases.
Sync features
"Find my damn iDevice"
Calendar, Contacts, Bookmark sync
Web page
Gallery
iWork.com
Then roll out Mobileme Pro
Make iDisk more like Drop Box.
Enhance the sync
Online Backup
Cloud Music (Lala style)
iWork.com Pro (adds collaborative editing)
Whatever other cool stuff they can deliver
I could see Apple making some features of Mobileme free. I don't think they're just going kill a revenue stream but they could offer a basic free Mobileme account which gives you.
A me.com email address with 5 aliases.
Sync features
"Find my damn iDevice"
Calendar, Contacts, Bookmark sync
Web page
Gallery
iWork.com
Then roll out Mobileme Pro
Make iDisk more like Drop Box.
Enhance the sync
Online Backup
Cloud Music (Lala style)
iWork.com Pro (adds collaborative editing)
Whatever other cool stuff they can deliver
KnightWRX
Apr 24, 12:09 PM
I do wish people would stop using the "marketing name" Retina displays.
Just say what screen resolution you would like.
Also, this story probably isn't about "retina" displays per say as people view them (4 times the pixel count) but more akin to new monitors that use DP 1.2's available bandwidth, finally breaking the 2560x1600 barrier we've had for the last few years.
This news item is probably mostly about new ACD resolutions/new iMac resolutions than it is about a whole revamp of the entire line-up to use the misused "Retina" monicker.
Apple knows what they meant by Retina, too bad most people around here fail to accept that meaning and go for the simpler "300 PPI screen".
Just say what screen resolution you would like.
Also, this story probably isn't about "retina" displays per say as people view them (4 times the pixel count) but more akin to new monitors that use DP 1.2's available bandwidth, finally breaking the 2560x1600 barrier we've had for the last few years.
This news item is probably mostly about new ACD resolutions/new iMac resolutions than it is about a whole revamp of the entire line-up to use the misused "Retina" monicker.
Apple knows what they meant by Retina, too bad most people around here fail to accept that meaning and go for the simpler "300 PPI screen".
heisetax
May 4, 08:23 PM
i intend to get mine on a disc rather then a download.
I prefer to have my programs on DVDs. Many of the small programs will work by copying them to the hard drive or a CD or DVD. Larger programs like items from Adobe, MicroSoft & in particular my OS to run my Mac I want on a DVD.
Plus the fact that I do not like the idea of the Apple store selling me any software, Apple or from Third Parties.
I prefer to have my programs on DVDs. Many of the small programs will work by copying them to the hard drive or a CD or DVD. Larger programs like items from Adobe, MicroSoft & in particular my OS to run my Mac I want on a DVD.
Plus the fact that I do not like the idea of the Apple store selling me any software, Apple or from Third Parties.
Dr.Gargoyle
Jul 30, 08:53 AM
An iPod with phone capabilities is a both natural and necessary step for Apple. Seeing how e.g. SonyEricsson already provides cellphones with 4 Gb stored music, Apple needs to act fast.
The interface of the iPod is brilliant, but I still believe that most people prefer one device instead of lugging around on both a cellphone and a Nano. The simple fact is that most of us have too many gadgets today; cellphone/iPod/digCam/PDA/GPS... You shouldn't need a dolly just to be able to bring all your "necessary" mobile electronic gadgets with you. Hence, including phone capabilities in the iPod is vital if Apple wants to stay in the mp3 market long term.
The interface of the iPod is brilliant, but I still believe that most people prefer one device instead of lugging around on both a cellphone and a Nano. The simple fact is that most of us have too many gadgets today; cellphone/iPod/digCam/PDA/GPS... You shouldn't need a dolly just to be able to bring all your "necessary" mobile electronic gadgets with you. Hence, including phone capabilities in the iPod is vital if Apple wants to stay in the mp3 market long term.
2ndPath
Aug 7, 05:54 PM
Why is everyone complaining about the graphics card? The baseline option should not be an expensive card as not everyone needs that. And opposed to all other current macs, it can be upgraded when the machine is bought or even down the road. A better base line card would just mean an even higher base line price.
The Mac Pro looks like a really nice work station now in terms of processing power and, compared to the G5, also in terms of expandability of drives. It would be nice to have something with the processing power and pricing like the iMac and some expandability. However I guess Apple expects most people, who buy Mac Pros now, would buy these machines instead and this would mean much less profit for Apple. So it's unlikely to happen.
The Mac Pro looks like a really nice work station now in terms of processing power and, compared to the G5, also in terms of expandability of drives. It would be nice to have something with the processing power and pricing like the iMac and some expandability. However I guess Apple expects most people, who buy Mac Pros now, would buy these machines instead and this would mean much less profit for Apple. So it's unlikely to happen.
MacLawyer
Mar 27, 11:00 AM
as far as I can tell, has no basis in fact whatsoever. The Techcrunch article leads back to "unnamed sources."
Maybe Fred at the local donut shop told them?
Maybe Fred at the local donut shop told them?
GCRoberts
Apr 7, 01:25 PM
I see the short sighted Apple pom-pom shakers are once again giddy with excitement. The juvenile remarks are embarrassing.
For some strange reason you think monopolies are good for consumers.
I think there is more going on here with many of us Apple supporters. We have already watched Apple lose out to Microsoft in the 80's when Apple clearly had the better products. Thirty years later we still suffer through a Microsoft dominated world while Apple STILL has better products. Yes, we can buy Macs for home, but we go to the office and have to sit in front of MicroCrap software. You have to suspect that there will be a huge winner in this new market as well and we desperately want it to be Apple this time around! Will this mean that Apple will become the company that makes crappy products while the little guys create genius.....possibly.....but with decades of a pretty damn good track record.....our money is on Apple to continue to innovate no matter how much market share they own.
For some strange reason you think monopolies are good for consumers.
I think there is more going on here with many of us Apple supporters. We have already watched Apple lose out to Microsoft in the 80's when Apple clearly had the better products. Thirty years later we still suffer through a Microsoft dominated world while Apple STILL has better products. Yes, we can buy Macs for home, but we go to the office and have to sit in front of MicroCrap software. You have to suspect that there will be a huge winner in this new market as well and we desperately want it to be Apple this time around! Will this mean that Apple will become the company that makes crappy products while the little guys create genius.....possibly.....but with decades of a pretty damn good track record.....our money is on Apple to continue to innovate no matter how much market share they own.
EricNau
May 3, 09:48 PM
I don't have the time to write an exhaustive response to this magnum opus, but I'm going to leave with a few concluding points:
It doesn't matter what normal body temperature is because that's not what people are looking for when they take a temperature; they're looking for what's not normal. If it can be helped, the number one is seeking should be as flat as possible.
There is a distinctive quality about 100 that is special. It represents an additional place value and is a line of demarcation for most people. For a scientist or professional, the numbers seem the same (each with 3 digits ending in the tenths place), but to the lay user they are very different. The average person doesn't know what significant digits are or when rounding is appropriate. It's far more likely that someone will falsely remember "37.2" as "37" than they will "99" as "98.6." Even if they do make an error and think of 98.6 as 99, it is an error on the side of caution (because presumably they will take their child to the doctor or at least call in).
I realize this makes me seem like I put people in low regard, but the fact is that most things designed for common use are meant to be idiot-proof. Redundancies and warnings are hard to miss in such designs, and on a temperature scale, one that makes 100 "dangerous" is very practical and effective. You have to keep in mind that this scale is going to be used by the illiterate, functionally illiterate, the negligent, the careless, the sloppy, and the hurried.
The importance of additional digits finds its way into many facets of life, including advertising and pricing. It essentially the only reason why everything is sold at intervals of "xx.99" instead of a flat price point. Marketers have long determined that if they were to round up to the nearest whole number, it would make the price seem disproportionately larger. The same "trick" is being used by the Fahrenheit scale; the presence of the additional digit makes people more alarmed at the appropriate time.
I believe the discussion of body temperature has reached a senseless level. I disagree with your claim that body temperatures in celsius are more difficult to remember, and I don't believe there's any substatial evidence to support this claim. Regardless, Celsius seems to work just fine for the entire world (...practically), unless you know something about European mothers that I don't.
Of course any amateur baker has at least a few cups of both wet and dry so they can keep ingredients separated but measured when they need to be added in a precise order. It just isn't practical to bake with 3 measuring devices and a scale (which, let's be real here, would cost 5 times as much as a set of measuring cups).
I see no reason why baking with a scale is impractical. It's not what you're used to, but that doesn't reflect upon the merits of a metric system.
This also relies on having recipes with written weights as opposed to volumes. It would also be problematic because you'd make people relearn common measurements for the metric beaker because they couldn't have their cups (ie I know 1 egg is half a cup, so it's easy to put half an egg in a recipe-I would have to do milimeter devision to figure this out for a metric recipe even though there's a perfectly good standard device for it).
Written weights are more accurate. What's problematic is that there's an additional requirement for measuring volumes of dry goods. Flour must be measured after sifting, brown sugar must be packed, etc. Not only does weighing dry goods eliminate the need to standardization of volume, but it's always going to be more accurate.
So what would you call 500ml of beer at a bar? Would everyone refer to the spoon at the dinner table as "the 30?" The naming convention isn't going to disappear just because measurements are given in metric. Or are you saying that the naming convention should disappear and numbers used exclusively in their stead?
As balmaw explained, it doesn't really matter what you call a pint of beer at a bar. Every culture and language has their own name for it.
In that case, what would I call 1 cup of a drink? Even if it is made flat at 200, 250, or 300ml, what would be the name? I think by and large it would still be called a cup. In that case you aren't really accomplishing much because people are going to refer to it as they will and the metric quantity wouldn't really do anything because it's not something that people usually divide or multiply by 10 very often in daily life.
If you ask for a "cup of water" at a restaurant, will you be given exactly 8oz? I don't think so.
Most cups hold more than a cup. So, in the absence of a measuring cup, there's really no need for such a designation. So, assuming we do away with the customary system, why do you need a word to describe 8oz of water? You would stop thinking in cups and start thinking in quarter liter intervals (which is equally, if not more, convenient).
No, that would be 1/4 of a liter, not 4 liters. I'm assuming that without gallons, the most closely analogous metric quantity would be 4 liters. What would be the marketing term for this? The shorthand name that would allow people to express a quantity without referring to another number?
I believe milk in Germany is bought by the liter, though I'm sure European members here could elaborate on that.
You might find purchasing milk by the liter cumbersome, but it works well for them.
Well I'm assuming that beer would have to be served in metric quantities, and a pint is known the world over as a beer. You can't really expect the name to go out of use just because the quantity has changed by a factor of about 25ml.
Beer is served in metric quantities all over the world. ...And there are plenty of names for it that aren't "pint." Additionally, I assure you that an American pint of beer is served with less precision than 25ml from bar to bar.
Except you can't divide the servings people usually take for themselves very easily by 2, 4, 8, or 16. An eighth of 300ml (a hypothetical metric cup), for example, is a decimal. It's not very probable that if someone was to describe how much cream they added to their coffee they'd describe it as "37.5ml." It's more likely that they'll say "1/4 of x" or "2 of y." This is how the standard system was born; people took everyday quantities (often times as random as fists, feet, and gulps) and over time standardized them.
And metric units, too, are used the world over to describe household amounts.
Also, dividing 300ml (though, I find it interesting that you keep choosing to compare metric units to customary units, since this is counter-productive) can easily be rounded to 38 or even 40ml, which is precise enough even for baking.
Though it's entirely a moot point. Metric recipes are normalized to "easy" measurements, just like American recipes are normalized to the nearest cup or 1/2 for items like flour and sugar.
Every standard unit conforms to a value we are likely to see to this day (a man's foot is still about 12 inches, a tablespoon is about one bite, etc). Granted it's not scientific, but it's not meant to be. It's meant to be practical to describe everyday units, much like "lion" is not the full scientific name for panthera leo. One naming scheme makes sense for one application and another makes sense for a very different application. I whole heartedly agree that for scientific, industrial, and official uses metric is the way to go, but it is not the way to go for lay people. People are not scientists. They should use the measuring schemes that are practical for the things in their lives.
I don't find the customary system practical. To the contrary, I find it convoluted with no consistency.
It's onerous to learn how to multiply and divide by 10 + 3 root words? :confused: Besides, so many things in our daily lives have both unit scales. My ruler has inches and cm and mm. Bathroom scales have pounds and kg. Even measuring cups have ml written on them.
I've witnessed many students struggle with it. When you grow up using Fahrenheit, feet, miles, inches, cups, teaspoons, etc. you get a sense of what each one means; you can "feel" it. The same can't be said about the metric system for most Americans, and it's extremely difficult to teach yourself what each unit intuitively represents as a high school student, for example.
It's something many of us will never get. Kilometers, Celsius, liters, centimeters, etc. will always "feel" foreign because of the units we were raised with at home. We owe our kids better.
It doesn't matter what normal body temperature is because that's not what people are looking for when they take a temperature; they're looking for what's not normal. If it can be helped, the number one is seeking should be as flat as possible.
There is a distinctive quality about 100 that is special. It represents an additional place value and is a line of demarcation for most people. For a scientist or professional, the numbers seem the same (each with 3 digits ending in the tenths place), but to the lay user they are very different. The average person doesn't know what significant digits are or when rounding is appropriate. It's far more likely that someone will falsely remember "37.2" as "37" than they will "99" as "98.6." Even if they do make an error and think of 98.6 as 99, it is an error on the side of caution (because presumably they will take their child to the doctor or at least call in).
I realize this makes me seem like I put people in low regard, but the fact is that most things designed for common use are meant to be idiot-proof. Redundancies and warnings are hard to miss in such designs, and on a temperature scale, one that makes 100 "dangerous" is very practical and effective. You have to keep in mind that this scale is going to be used by the illiterate, functionally illiterate, the negligent, the careless, the sloppy, and the hurried.
The importance of additional digits finds its way into many facets of life, including advertising and pricing. It essentially the only reason why everything is sold at intervals of "xx.99" instead of a flat price point. Marketers have long determined that if they were to round up to the nearest whole number, it would make the price seem disproportionately larger. The same "trick" is being used by the Fahrenheit scale; the presence of the additional digit makes people more alarmed at the appropriate time.
I believe the discussion of body temperature has reached a senseless level. I disagree with your claim that body temperatures in celsius are more difficult to remember, and I don't believe there's any substatial evidence to support this claim. Regardless, Celsius seems to work just fine for the entire world (...practically), unless you know something about European mothers that I don't.
Of course any amateur baker has at least a few cups of both wet and dry so they can keep ingredients separated but measured when they need to be added in a precise order. It just isn't practical to bake with 3 measuring devices and a scale (which, let's be real here, would cost 5 times as much as a set of measuring cups).
I see no reason why baking with a scale is impractical. It's not what you're used to, but that doesn't reflect upon the merits of a metric system.
This also relies on having recipes with written weights as opposed to volumes. It would also be problematic because you'd make people relearn common measurements for the metric beaker because they couldn't have their cups (ie I know 1 egg is half a cup, so it's easy to put half an egg in a recipe-I would have to do milimeter devision to figure this out for a metric recipe even though there's a perfectly good standard device for it).
Written weights are more accurate. What's problematic is that there's an additional requirement for measuring volumes of dry goods. Flour must be measured after sifting, brown sugar must be packed, etc. Not only does weighing dry goods eliminate the need to standardization of volume, but it's always going to be more accurate.
So what would you call 500ml of beer at a bar? Would everyone refer to the spoon at the dinner table as "the 30?" The naming convention isn't going to disappear just because measurements are given in metric. Or are you saying that the naming convention should disappear and numbers used exclusively in their stead?
As balmaw explained, it doesn't really matter what you call a pint of beer at a bar. Every culture and language has their own name for it.
In that case, what would I call 1 cup of a drink? Even if it is made flat at 200, 250, or 300ml, what would be the name? I think by and large it would still be called a cup. In that case you aren't really accomplishing much because people are going to refer to it as they will and the metric quantity wouldn't really do anything because it's not something that people usually divide or multiply by 10 very often in daily life.
If you ask for a "cup of water" at a restaurant, will you be given exactly 8oz? I don't think so.
Most cups hold more than a cup. So, in the absence of a measuring cup, there's really no need for such a designation. So, assuming we do away with the customary system, why do you need a word to describe 8oz of water? You would stop thinking in cups and start thinking in quarter liter intervals (which is equally, if not more, convenient).
No, that would be 1/4 of a liter, not 4 liters. I'm assuming that without gallons, the most closely analogous metric quantity would be 4 liters. What would be the marketing term for this? The shorthand name that would allow people to express a quantity without referring to another number?
I believe milk in Germany is bought by the liter, though I'm sure European members here could elaborate on that.
You might find purchasing milk by the liter cumbersome, but it works well for them.
Well I'm assuming that beer would have to be served in metric quantities, and a pint is known the world over as a beer. You can't really expect the name to go out of use just because the quantity has changed by a factor of about 25ml.
Beer is served in metric quantities all over the world. ...And there are plenty of names for it that aren't "pint." Additionally, I assure you that an American pint of beer is served with less precision than 25ml from bar to bar.
Except you can't divide the servings people usually take for themselves very easily by 2, 4, 8, or 16. An eighth of 300ml (a hypothetical metric cup), for example, is a decimal. It's not very probable that if someone was to describe how much cream they added to their coffee they'd describe it as "37.5ml." It's more likely that they'll say "1/4 of x" or "2 of y." This is how the standard system was born; people took everyday quantities (often times as random as fists, feet, and gulps) and over time standardized them.
And metric units, too, are used the world over to describe household amounts.
Also, dividing 300ml (though, I find it interesting that you keep choosing to compare metric units to customary units, since this is counter-productive) can easily be rounded to 38 or even 40ml, which is precise enough even for baking.
Though it's entirely a moot point. Metric recipes are normalized to "easy" measurements, just like American recipes are normalized to the nearest cup or 1/2 for items like flour and sugar.
Every standard unit conforms to a value we are likely to see to this day (a man's foot is still about 12 inches, a tablespoon is about one bite, etc). Granted it's not scientific, but it's not meant to be. It's meant to be practical to describe everyday units, much like "lion" is not the full scientific name for panthera leo. One naming scheme makes sense for one application and another makes sense for a very different application. I whole heartedly agree that for scientific, industrial, and official uses metric is the way to go, but it is not the way to go for lay people. People are not scientists. They should use the measuring schemes that are practical for the things in their lives.
I don't find the customary system practical. To the contrary, I find it convoluted with no consistency.
It's onerous to learn how to multiply and divide by 10 + 3 root words? :confused: Besides, so many things in our daily lives have both unit scales. My ruler has inches and cm and mm. Bathroom scales have pounds and kg. Even measuring cups have ml written on them.
I've witnessed many students struggle with it. When you grow up using Fahrenheit, feet, miles, inches, cups, teaspoons, etc. you get a sense of what each one means; you can "feel" it. The same can't be said about the metric system for most Americans, and it's extremely difficult to teach yourself what each unit intuitively represents as a high school student, for example.
It's something many of us will never get. Kilometers, Celsius, liters, centimeters, etc. will always "feel" foreign because of the units we were raised with at home. We owe our kids better.
al2o3cr
Mar 29, 09:46 AM
What I'm more curious about is: will Amazon offer the Import/Export service:
http://aws.amazon.com/importexport/
for these accounts? I suspect an awful lot of us stuck behind cable modems with craptastical upload speeds would appreciate that...
http://aws.amazon.com/importexport/
for these accounts? I suspect an awful lot of us stuck behind cable modems with craptastical upload speeds would appreciate that...
Multimedia
Sep 17, 01:45 AM
well i just placed my order for a 15" MBP 2.0 base model w/ an iPod 60GB
i chatted with a rep and pointed out that i have 14 days to return. i have 30 days to submit the iPod rebate (which requires a upc cut from MBP box)
so my status shows ship date of the 19th and arrival of the 26th!
so kinda in a pickle with dates but the 60GB will only cost me $120 in the end.
BTW, Im a first time mac buyer even though ive used em for years at work!
http://static.flickr.com/81/244990126_78cbf5958d.jpgYou couldn't buy the new 80GB iPod at the new lower price of only $349? Man you are buying an obsolete inferior iPod. That is plain lame short sightedness. :eek:
If I were you I would phone back and insist on the new 80GB model for sure.
i chatted with a rep and pointed out that i have 14 days to return. i have 30 days to submit the iPod rebate (which requires a upc cut from MBP box)
so my status shows ship date of the 19th and arrival of the 26th!
so kinda in a pickle with dates but the 60GB will only cost me $120 in the end.
BTW, Im a first time mac buyer even though ive used em for years at work!
http://static.flickr.com/81/244990126_78cbf5958d.jpgYou couldn't buy the new 80GB iPod at the new lower price of only $349? Man you are buying an obsolete inferior iPod. That is plain lame short sightedness. :eek:
If I were you I would phone back and insist on the new 80GB model for sure.
realitymonkey
Mar 31, 08:14 AM
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1053152/Apple-admit-Briton-DID-invent-iPod-hes-getting-money.html
Ah yes can we have a decent source please not that ridiculous piece of ill conceived drivel that is the Daily Mail.
Ah yes can we have a decent source please not that ridiculous piece of ill conceived drivel that is the Daily Mail.
hexor
Apr 26, 03:17 PM
It's not *that" deceptive... they did include "US smartphone usage" in the headline.
I'll bet you money they include Android tablets in the same chart if an Android tablet ever actually sells significant numbers. And it IS deceptive because they did not point out that the chart is completely different if you included all Apple iOS devices, whereas if you included all other Android devices besides phones the chart wouldn't change.
I'll bet you money they include Android tablets in the same chart if an Android tablet ever actually sells significant numbers. And it IS deceptive because they did not point out that the chart is completely different if you included all Apple iOS devices, whereas if you included all other Android devices besides phones the chart wouldn't change.
dernhelm
Sep 11, 03:40 PM
I really think Apple will offer atleast 3 resolutions ie QVGA, DVD and(crossing fingers) HD 720p(may be at an extra cost and limited in number of available titles). Apple needs to do something which will set them apart from Amazon. I`ll be really disappointed if all we get is the same as Amazon.
Apple is not concerned with the width of your internet pipe, they will be concerned about the pressure everyone else puts on their own pipes.
All I can say is plan on being disappointed. You will get wide-screen aspect ratios but there is no way they will start out with (720p or 1080i) HD quality for an internet download. Amazon didn't do it for the same reasons. A movie download store is of no particular use to anyone if you could drive to the store and purchase the movie quicker. Geeks who don't mind fiddling around with BitTorrent not withstanding, John Q. Public needs something straightforward and simple.
I'm more interested in the way Apple plans on getting around the "you gotta watch it on your computer screen" problem. Computers are fun and all, but when I watch a movie, I want to do it curled up on the couch in front of my TV. I don't live in a dorm room and I have no particular desire to replace my TV with a computer screen. The number and types of movies that I will download will be severely restricted if they are limited to those that I am willing to watch on my computer.
Apple has to solve that problem if they want their video store to take off. And I think SJ knows it. Really high quality video would be a bonus, but non-HD, widescreen aspect ratio video that I could stream directly to my TV with little or no headache would suit me just fine.
:cool:
Apple is not concerned with the width of your internet pipe, they will be concerned about the pressure everyone else puts on their own pipes.
All I can say is plan on being disappointed. You will get wide-screen aspect ratios but there is no way they will start out with (720p or 1080i) HD quality for an internet download. Amazon didn't do it for the same reasons. A movie download store is of no particular use to anyone if you could drive to the store and purchase the movie quicker. Geeks who don't mind fiddling around with BitTorrent not withstanding, John Q. Public needs something straightforward and simple.
I'm more interested in the way Apple plans on getting around the "you gotta watch it on your computer screen" problem. Computers are fun and all, but when I watch a movie, I want to do it curled up on the couch in front of my TV. I don't live in a dorm room and I have no particular desire to replace my TV with a computer screen. The number and types of movies that I will download will be severely restricted if they are limited to those that I am willing to watch on my computer.
Apple has to solve that problem if they want their video store to take off. And I think SJ knows it. Really high quality video would be a bonus, but non-HD, widescreen aspect ratio video that I could stream directly to my TV with little or no headache would suit me just fine.
:cool:
Object-X
Aug 7, 02:03 PM
They updated the specs of the displays too along with lowering the price.
Michaelgtrusa
Apr 23, 04:36 PM
Very good news!:apple::apple::apple::apple::apple::apple::D:D:D:D:D:D
mkrishnan
Nov 22, 11:20 AM
Good post. I'm still waiting for a phone that will easily (and thoroughly) sync with my Address Book and iCal, and I'm on the mac platform. So even some of the features you describe would be of immediate value to a lot of mac users.
My experience with Symbian (Series 60) is that it does a very thorough sync'ing using iSync.... and of course there are many, many phones that do at least a loosely passable job... even my cute but dumb RAZR. Are you serious or joking?
My experience with Symbian (Series 60) is that it does a very thorough sync'ing using iSync.... and of course there are many, many phones that do at least a loosely passable job... even my cute but dumb RAZR. Are you serious or joking?
CmdrLaForge
Nov 26, 01:58 PM
I see this being used as the interface remote for iTV. As a full-blown PDA device, no.
I assume it is just a tablet Mac.
Cheers
LaForge
P.S: What does the ribbon mean?
I assume it is just a tablet Mac.
Cheers
LaForge
P.S: What does the ribbon mean?
macaddict06
Jul 21, 08:19 PM
Has any laptop manufacturer announced a specific ship date for laptops with Merom? What was the turnaround time for the original MacBook Pros from the time Intel announced they were shipping the processors to the time Apple announced they were shipping the laptops?
Yeah, CoreDuo was released at CES06, and then 3 days later (Friday release Mon/Tues Keynote, am I right?) Apple announced that it was in the iMac and the spanking new MBP. Turnaround was slow, about 5 weeks iirc. However, that was the first laptop to have an Intel processor in it, so that was the big part of the rush. Also, if the MacPro comes out, some prosumers will shift away from getting a laptop and just get a kickass Woodcrest-enabled MP. Overall, I should think that if it gets released at WWDC (MBP that is), it should be in our hot little hands by Sept 1. Any takers?
Macaddict06
Yeah, CoreDuo was released at CES06, and then 3 days later (Friday release Mon/Tues Keynote, am I right?) Apple announced that it was in the iMac and the spanking new MBP. Turnaround was slow, about 5 weeks iirc. However, that was the first laptop to have an Intel processor in it, so that was the big part of the rush. Also, if the MacPro comes out, some prosumers will shift away from getting a laptop and just get a kickass Woodcrest-enabled MP. Overall, I should think that if it gets released at WWDC (MBP that is), it should be in our hot little hands by Sept 1. Any takers?
Macaddict06
RebelScum
Apr 20, 08:55 AM
Right or wrong the glass iphone will be forever associated with Antennagate.
Yeah that whole debacle really brought the company to its knees. :rolleyes:
Yeah that whole debacle really brought the company to its knees. :rolleyes:
zephonic
Apr 21, 07:46 PM
Here's a quick scale / mockup
http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=282430&d=1303415383
Nice! but isn't that 2U rather than 3?
I would imagine the rack ears to be optional so that you can still put it on your desk as a tower (or horizontally). Fingers crossed for a cheaper base-model, but not holding my breath.
Smaller is better. Hotter and noisier is not. Hope they keep 'em cool and quiet.
http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=282430&d=1303415383
Nice! but isn't that 2U rather than 3?
I would imagine the rack ears to be optional so that you can still put it on your desk as a tower (or horizontally). Fingers crossed for a cheaper base-model, but not holding my breath.
Smaller is better. Hotter and noisier is not. Hope they keep 'em cool and quiet.
zacman
Apr 18, 03:24 PM
What is your source for this information?
Apple keynote and NDP survey.
Apple keynote and NDP survey.
PeterQVenkman
Apr 25, 10:34 AM
News Flash: You just lied about Steve Jobs.
Here is how your quote appears on the iOS:
News: You just lied about Steve Jobs.
;)
Here is how your quote appears on the iOS:
News: You just lied about Steve Jobs.
;)
SandynJosh
Apr 26, 03:42 PM
Boy, you are sniffing a serious amount of glue.:rolleyes: His motivation is to make brainwashed fanboys BELIEVE Apple is making the best darn tech gadgets in the world, such that Apple can make the most darn profits and he can get the biggest darn bonus. And with THAT, he is a genious.
What makes a product "Best" in its category is defined by different people differently. For some people "best" is a free phone because they can't afford anything else. Some people pour over the specs and select the "best".
For me, "best" is the phone that operates the most intuitively to my way of thinking. I want something that I don't need to refer back to the manual to use its features. My Android Incredible came with a 8" x 11", 73 page manual that I need to use to operate the phone... that fact speaks volumes to what separates the Android from the "best."
What makes a product "Best" in its category is defined by different people differently. For some people "best" is a free phone because they can't afford anything else. Some people pour over the specs and select the "best".
For me, "best" is the phone that operates the most intuitively to my way of thinking. I want something that I don't need to refer back to the manual to use its features. My Android Incredible came with a 8" x 11", 73 page manual that I need to use to operate the phone... that fact speaks volumes to what separates the Android from the "best."