Apple Corps
Jul 21, 02:20 PM
I posted this very early on:
thought-provoking-elly-dance-
Belly Dance Costumes and
No Dress costumes available
Belly Dance Costumes (88252)
Belly Dance Fashion Stars 25
HecubusPro
Sep 16, 05:47 PM
I'll guess 12", 15" and 17". I read somewhere they're expecting a 12".
The 12" is a unverified rumor to be taken with a large grain of salt at this point. I would think they would just soup up a MB and sell it as a MBP before they made a 12" again. Of course, you never know with apple.
The 12" is a unverified rumor to be taken with a large grain of salt at this point. I would think they would just soup up a MB and sell it as a MBP before they made a 12" again. Of course, you never know with apple.
Full of Win
Apr 23, 05:08 PM
anyone remember when screens were 1024x768? who would have imagined that now icons are 1024x1024... that icon is bigger than the total resolution of my first computer's display
What do you mean? 13 Inch MacBook/MBP screen resolution is still s 1280 x 800, which only ~20% more pixels than the resolution you mentioned.
What do you mean? 13 Inch MacBook/MBP screen resolution is still s 1280 x 800, which only ~20% more pixels than the resolution you mentioned.
Bobthemonkey
Sep 11, 08:56 AM
how about this for a scenario
quiet release of C2D MB/MBP at the start of the expo - similar to the imac/mac mini
then his steveness can deliver the full its showtime reel at the special event.
announce movie store, with ipod updates, and full ipod video as 'one more thing'
quiet release of C2D MB/MBP at the start of the expo - similar to the imac/mac mini
then his steveness can deliver the full its showtime reel at the special event.
announce movie store, with ipod updates, and full ipod video as 'one more thing'
KnightWRX
May 6, 06:52 AM
Google is allready running their data centres on ARM based servers
Citation needed. Especially in light of this 2 month old article :
Intel, Google Doubt ARM and Atom Have Chances in Servers (http://www.cpu-wars.com/2011/03/intel-google-doubt-arm-and-atom-have.html)
Citation needed. Especially in light of this 2 month old article :
Intel, Google Doubt ARM and Atom Have Chances in Servers (http://www.cpu-wars.com/2011/03/intel-google-doubt-arm-and-atom-have.html)
wovel
Apr 7, 12:25 PM
Wow. I think you missed the point. At 1199, the MacbookPRO should have a discrete option...hell, POS HP's at 600.00 do.
Oh, and please spare me the snarky "well then enjoy your HP! Har har har" comment.
elly dancing costume
Belly Dance Coin Costume
Belt Belly Dance Costume
elly dancing costumes
Belly dance costume 826-purple
Belly Dance Costume Made
9401, FANCY
Woman in elly dance costume
Belly dance costume 2
tsa, Arabic+elly+dance+
elly dancing costume sets
Bellyqueen Exotic Belly Dance
Belly Dance Costume - At
Oh, and please spare me the snarky "well then enjoy your HP! Har har har" comment.
SandynJosh
Nov 23, 12:57 PM
In looking over all the ideas generated in this thread and all the trends going on in the world, I'm lead to wonder if a consumer iPhone makes as much sense as it would seem to at first blush. Sure, the numbers can be great, but the profit potential is nearly nil.
Hasn't the consumer iPhone by now become a commodity product? More features are being tucked in rather then reducing the cost further and the base cost of contracts are at an all time low. I don't think it would be wise for Apple or anyone else to enter a relatively mature commodity market.
RIM has mapped out a good chunk of the business market, but it still is vulnerable. But is the business market alone worth the risk at this point?
I suspect that Apple's stragegy is to leverage off the iPod market base in such a way that it becomes an easy choice to buy the new iPhone. For example, many of the newest cars will have a place to integrate the iPod into the sound system. Aircraft companies are making a similar provision for the audio AND the video. Tons of other manufacturers have made in-home equipment to hold and access the information stored in the iPod.
Imagine, if you will, the new iPhone nesting in all them iPod-friendly ports. In the car, it becomes a hands free cell phone with voice recognition dialing and a high-quality speakerphone (aka, the car's sound system). Now imagine either a business person using the system as he cruises between appointments, or a group of teens using it as they cruise the streets on a Friday night. Both productive for one and way cool for the other group.
All of the above done without adding much at all to a basic phone/iPod, just the pure iPod base being leveraged. Now add a few user interface features and a couple of bells and whistles to appeal to a broad range of users and you hit the ground running.
It's the more specific user related want list that next needs to be addressed and that's where it gets dicey. That might be best marketed as additional features that could be added as needed.
For example, not everyone needs GPS. However, let's go back to the automobile with the iPod port in the dash. Now using the new iPhone with the GPS option, a person can travel to an unfamiliar place with ease. They may not have bought the GPS option in the beginning, but they bought the ability to add the option when they made their decision. It's similar to computers in this regard. Oftem a computer isn't purchased with the full load of RAM but a computer that can't be expanded has a harder go of it even if it is superior... i.e. the history of the early Mac.
A good camera phone with some image stabilization would serve a lot of people. Would it be better as an option that might bulk up the phone a little but could be slipped on and off as needed?
However apple does the iPhone it will need to integrate it into the existing iPod port structure for maximum penetration right out of the gate. And then, let's not forget the soon-to-be-released iTV. How might that integrate a phone's utility?
I hinestly can't imagine a good answer to that last question, but my mind is still reeling with the unanswered question of why Steve would pre-announce a product after not doing so since 1983.
Hasn't the consumer iPhone by now become a commodity product? More features are being tucked in rather then reducing the cost further and the base cost of contracts are at an all time low. I don't think it would be wise for Apple or anyone else to enter a relatively mature commodity market.
RIM has mapped out a good chunk of the business market, but it still is vulnerable. But is the business market alone worth the risk at this point?
I suspect that Apple's stragegy is to leverage off the iPod market base in such a way that it becomes an easy choice to buy the new iPhone. For example, many of the newest cars will have a place to integrate the iPod into the sound system. Aircraft companies are making a similar provision for the audio AND the video. Tons of other manufacturers have made in-home equipment to hold and access the information stored in the iPod.
Imagine, if you will, the new iPhone nesting in all them iPod-friendly ports. In the car, it becomes a hands free cell phone with voice recognition dialing and a high-quality speakerphone (aka, the car's sound system). Now imagine either a business person using the system as he cruises between appointments, or a group of teens using it as they cruise the streets on a Friday night. Both productive for one and way cool for the other group.
All of the above done without adding much at all to a basic phone/iPod, just the pure iPod base being leveraged. Now add a few user interface features and a couple of bells and whistles to appeal to a broad range of users and you hit the ground running.
It's the more specific user related want list that next needs to be addressed and that's where it gets dicey. That might be best marketed as additional features that could be added as needed.
For example, not everyone needs GPS. However, let's go back to the automobile with the iPod port in the dash. Now using the new iPhone with the GPS option, a person can travel to an unfamiliar place with ease. They may not have bought the GPS option in the beginning, but they bought the ability to add the option when they made their decision. It's similar to computers in this regard. Oftem a computer isn't purchased with the full load of RAM but a computer that can't be expanded has a harder go of it even if it is superior... i.e. the history of the early Mac.
A good camera phone with some image stabilization would serve a lot of people. Would it be better as an option that might bulk up the phone a little but could be slipped on and off as needed?
However apple does the iPhone it will need to integrate it into the existing iPod port structure for maximum penetration right out of the gate. And then, let's not forget the soon-to-be-released iTV. How might that integrate a phone's utility?
I hinestly can't imagine a good answer to that last question, but my mind is still reeling with the unanswered question of why Steve would pre-announce a product after not doing so since 1983.
CalBoy
Apr 14, 05:54 PM
Or just treat all income as ordinary income and eliminate all the preferential treatment certain forms of income enjoy. Eliminate capital gain, business, gift and estate taxes, and treat all income from all sources as ordinary income and tax accordingly.
I think that could be the easiest way to solve the problem simply, but it would also have to come with a vast elimination of deductions and exemptions.
And we should, after an across the board cut, IMO.
There are two big parts of the budget that are hard to cut though. Social Security and Medicare really can't be cut without raising the retirement age to 70 NOW and cutting benefits. I don't think that's going to happen.
I think that could be the easiest way to solve the problem simply, but it would also have to come with a vast elimination of deductions and exemptions.
And we should, after an across the board cut, IMO.
There are two big parts of the budget that are hard to cut though. Social Security and Medicare really can't be cut without raising the retirement age to 70 NOW and cutting benefits. I don't think that's going to happen.
ZbHRP
May 7, 06:44 PM
MobileMe + iAds = FREE
MobileMe + Pro Features = $99.99
MobileMe + Pro Features = $99.99
shawnce
Aug 2, 12:29 PM
Due to hazardous substances contained within.
http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1830
To be clear... that was for the standalone iSight camera not the embedded iSight camera's available in the iMac, MacBook, MacBook Pro, etc.
http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1830
To be clear... that was for the standalone iSight camera not the embedded iSight camera's available in the iMac, MacBook, MacBook Pro, etc.
macintoshdaddy
Apr 24, 05:55 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8G4)
Try fitting that icon on your iPhone screen.
Try fitting that icon on your iPhone screen.
LordJohnWhorfin
Nov 22, 02:55 AM
oops
tblrsa
Apr 25, 10:28 AM
Right, and boy is there misinformation being spread right in this thread. Apple is NOT collecting this data, your iPhone is. It goes NOWHERE.
As I said, it isn't even doing that for me as I deleted that file on my Mac. Hey, instead of running around with your hair on fire, just delete that file. Wow, that's easy!
Naah, better to pretend this is one big conspiracy from Apple and spread misinformation. Hey, I know, let me contradict Steve's explicit statements. I sure know who I trust more: anonymous snipers on the Internet over Steve Jobs.
Unfortunately it�s not THAT easy. First, to delete the file you need to apply a jailbreak to your device. If you delete it on your Mac, pretty sure it will be recreated on your next device sync. Second, I�m sure the consolidated.db is not used by Apple themselves, BUT I guess it�s used by their advertising partners. I bet certain Apps will be able to access it to show localized iAds to the user. And to top it all off, Apple hasn�t asked for my permission to collect this data.
As I said, it isn't even doing that for me as I deleted that file on my Mac. Hey, instead of running around with your hair on fire, just delete that file. Wow, that's easy!
Naah, better to pretend this is one big conspiracy from Apple and spread misinformation. Hey, I know, let me contradict Steve's explicit statements. I sure know who I trust more: anonymous snipers on the Internet over Steve Jobs.
Unfortunately it�s not THAT easy. First, to delete the file you need to apply a jailbreak to your device. If you delete it on your Mac, pretty sure it will be recreated on your next device sync. Second, I�m sure the consolidated.db is not used by Apple themselves, BUT I guess it�s used by their advertising partners. I bet certain Apps will be able to access it to show localized iAds to the user. And to top it all off, Apple hasn�t asked for my permission to collect this data.
johnnyturbouk
Apr 6, 06:21 PM
What a joke of a tablet. Nothing but a piece of crap.
lmao
+1
back yo my precious (ipad)
lmao
+1
back yo my precious (ipad)
islanders
Jul 23, 09:36 AM
If Apple is really trying to stay state-of-the-art, they will lose Yonah as soon as Intel's supply can keep up with Apple's production volume. On the MacBook front, this should be able to happen by October-November, I imagine.
If Apple doesn't put Core 2 Duo in MacBooks @ 1.83 & 2GHz by November, the competition on the PC front is going to make Apple look like they are selling outdated products as if they are current. This will not fly among savy buyers and MacBook sales might falter - perhaps even tank without such a switch. :eek:
Almost all mobile computers selling for more than $1k by November will be Core 2 Duo. So for the holiday shopping season, Apple has got to put them inside MacBooks by then.
This seems to be a realistic approach� how long can Apple wait?
Just because Intel is shipping Merom, who are they shipping to? Apple? Dell? Sony?
When are these chips going to be delivered to Apple for at least one line of MBP?
Is it possible we are getting ahead of ourselves here? After all Apple was the last player to sign with Intel.
Or has Intel already produced enough chips to satisfy demand before shipping to any single company?
If Apple doesn't put Core 2 Duo in MacBooks @ 1.83 & 2GHz by November, the competition on the PC front is going to make Apple look like they are selling outdated products as if they are current. This will not fly among savy buyers and MacBook sales might falter - perhaps even tank without such a switch. :eek:
Almost all mobile computers selling for more than $1k by November will be Core 2 Duo. So for the holiday shopping season, Apple has got to put them inside MacBooks by then.
This seems to be a realistic approach� how long can Apple wait?
Just because Intel is shipping Merom, who are they shipping to? Apple? Dell? Sony?
When are these chips going to be delivered to Apple for at least one line of MBP?
Is it possible we are getting ahead of ourselves here? After all Apple was the last player to sign with Intel.
Or has Intel already produced enough chips to satisfy demand before shipping to any single company?
Joshuarocks
Apr 21, 09:31 PM
doubtful, this is a key switcher market... it would be crazy to axe the very thing that will continue to switch the PC builders/gamers over the next 5 years... this is a key ingredient to apple taking the industry over with time.
I think the iMac will take care of gamers and builders.. the mac pro is NOT a gaming device, it is a high class workstation that is designed for use with using and manipulating multi-threaded pro and audio apps.. Personally, I could care less about a new case design.. right now I just care that I can prolong the 6-core machine I have now.. and for my purposes, which are far and few between, the 6 core does everything I throw at it for a DAILY, email based machine.. I use it for dvd encoding, NO VIDEO EDITING(this area does not interest me one iota). If anything, i would use it for photography and everyday stuff, such as internet surfing, researching, writing books, etc.
I only got this for its expandability, as I despise an all in one machine like the iMac - if the screen goes, the whole thing needs to be replaced or repaired.. all in one desktops such as the imac are a dead end as one can't upgrade the processor easily if not at all..
Everyone please excuse me for my attitudes, I am going through a real tough time right now and have 103 temperature at the moment.
I think the iMac will take care of gamers and builders.. the mac pro is NOT a gaming device, it is a high class workstation that is designed for use with using and manipulating multi-threaded pro and audio apps.. Personally, I could care less about a new case design.. right now I just care that I can prolong the 6-core machine I have now.. and for my purposes, which are far and few between, the 6 core does everything I throw at it for a DAILY, email based machine.. I use it for dvd encoding, NO VIDEO EDITING(this area does not interest me one iota). If anything, i would use it for photography and everyday stuff, such as internet surfing, researching, writing books, etc.
I only got this for its expandability, as I despise an all in one machine like the iMac - if the screen goes, the whole thing needs to be replaced or repaired.. all in one desktops such as the imac are a dead end as one can't upgrade the processor easily if not at all..
Everyone please excuse me for my attitudes, I am going through a real tough time right now and have 103 temperature at the moment.
digitalbiker
Aug 4, 09:09 PM
Who cares for Quicken - it's not performance critical. It probably wasn't worth the effort given the gains probaby wouldn't even be noticeable.
I'd think that all Apple's Pro apps market to the same small intel mac userbase, and they're done. They weren't cross platform so I'd think they weren't easy to port.
We all know Adobe's reasons - but still, two years is a long time.
First, Apple's apps were easier to port because they were already XCode. So it was fairly easy for Apple to just recompile with the new compiler.
Second, Adobe was using a lot of CodeWarrior code and it would be far more difficult to convert. Also having X86 code compiled using MS VStudio doesn't help Adobe to be ahead in generating X86 code under XCode because they run under a completely different GUI and access different libraries.
Third, even Apple released the UB code with a new updated version of their pro apps. Adobe's CS3 was not due for a year and a half.
Fourth, Adobe announced their plans early on so that everyone would know what to expect.
My point about intuit is that Apple announced the transition before Intuit even began work on Quicken 2007. Quicken hardly relies on any graphics code, is mostly text, and number based. Yet they chose to ignore converting to UB code even though now would be perfect timing to do so. In addition they have not announced any plans to create UB's in the future.
Sure quicken will run with Rosetta, but is that what we want from developers. Forget about modernizing their code because they can make it run in an artificial emulated environment.
With that logic Intuit should have stuck with OS9 versions of quicken as it could always be run fine in classic.
I'd think that all Apple's Pro apps market to the same small intel mac userbase, and they're done. They weren't cross platform so I'd think they weren't easy to port.
We all know Adobe's reasons - but still, two years is a long time.
First, Apple's apps were easier to port because they were already XCode. So it was fairly easy for Apple to just recompile with the new compiler.
Second, Adobe was using a lot of CodeWarrior code and it would be far more difficult to convert. Also having X86 code compiled using MS VStudio doesn't help Adobe to be ahead in generating X86 code under XCode because they run under a completely different GUI and access different libraries.
Third, even Apple released the UB code with a new updated version of their pro apps. Adobe's CS3 was not due for a year and a half.
Fourth, Adobe announced their plans early on so that everyone would know what to expect.
My point about intuit is that Apple announced the transition before Intuit even began work on Quicken 2007. Quicken hardly relies on any graphics code, is mostly text, and number based. Yet they chose to ignore converting to UB code even though now would be perfect timing to do so. In addition they have not announced any plans to create UB's in the future.
Sure quicken will run with Rosetta, but is that what we want from developers. Forget about modernizing their code because they can make it run in an artificial emulated environment.
With that logic Intuit should have stuck with OS9 versions of quicken as it could always be run fine in classic.
ncvrumors
Mar 26, 09:56 PM
Taking the cloud fight to Google.
heisetax
Aug 2, 04:47 PM
Why is everyone so convinced that there will be significant updates to the Cinema Displays? Remember how long the non-Alu plastic displays were out? It must have been five years, while the Alu displays have been out for less then two years.
I can't see Apple making a bigger screen then 30" for desktop use. And if they were to, it would be for a multimedia center type thing, which not only is unlikely, but would never be released at WWDC. As a 30" display owner, theres no way a screen larger then 30" would be a feasible desktop display. Besides, anything larger then 30" is just too niche of a market.
Regarding a built-in iSight, I think the Pro market is just the wrong market for that. Apple has to be aware of its market, and b/c of security reasons, cameras just aren't feasible at this point.
Hell, who knows, I'm probably 100% wrong :p.
Edit: Perhaps Apple will just bump the display to be HDCP compliant. HDMI is pretty much the same as DVI, for everyone who doesn't know ;).
I agree with you that the 30" display is big. I disagree with you about any larger display as being too big. It may be for you but not for others. When I first starting using my 30" display besides my 23" display I thought it was big. Using it with my 17" PowerBook even makes it seem bigger. But the only thing that could hold me back from purchasing a larger display would be the need of purchasing a new computer to be able to use 2 larger screens at the same time. My 17" PowerBook can only use one. My MDD PowerMac can only use one. But that is really a different question.
Many people seem to have tunnel vision when they use their computers & are or at least think they are happy with one 15" display. Others can see the need & usefulness of a larger display. At least you use a 30". But if Apple would have come out with a 32", 35" or larger display instead would you have purchased it the same as you did your 30" model? Then it would take a 40" or 45" display to be too larger.
With DualLink only able to support 3840 X 2400 & Single Link only able to support up to 1920 X 1200, there will be a natural size limitation until one of the new systems come around. The need probably isn't there yet, but a couple more size and/or reolution increases would change all of that.
How long do you think it will be before someone else says that his 45" display is all the larger anyone would ever need, so why make one larger? Whan I sold computers many thought that the 17" CRT was too larger, why go larger than 15"?
Bill the TaxMan
I can't see Apple making a bigger screen then 30" for desktop use. And if they were to, it would be for a multimedia center type thing, which not only is unlikely, but would never be released at WWDC. As a 30" display owner, theres no way a screen larger then 30" would be a feasible desktop display. Besides, anything larger then 30" is just too niche of a market.
Regarding a built-in iSight, I think the Pro market is just the wrong market for that. Apple has to be aware of its market, and b/c of security reasons, cameras just aren't feasible at this point.
Hell, who knows, I'm probably 100% wrong :p.
Edit: Perhaps Apple will just bump the display to be HDCP compliant. HDMI is pretty much the same as DVI, for everyone who doesn't know ;).
I agree with you that the 30" display is big. I disagree with you about any larger display as being too big. It may be for you but not for others. When I first starting using my 30" display besides my 23" display I thought it was big. Using it with my 17" PowerBook even makes it seem bigger. But the only thing that could hold me back from purchasing a larger display would be the need of purchasing a new computer to be able to use 2 larger screens at the same time. My 17" PowerBook can only use one. My MDD PowerMac can only use one. But that is really a different question.
Many people seem to have tunnel vision when they use their computers & are or at least think they are happy with one 15" display. Others can see the need & usefulness of a larger display. At least you use a 30". But if Apple would have come out with a 32", 35" or larger display instead would you have purchased it the same as you did your 30" model? Then it would take a 40" or 45" display to be too larger.
With DualLink only able to support 3840 X 2400 & Single Link only able to support up to 1920 X 1200, there will be a natural size limitation until one of the new systems come around. The need probably isn't there yet, but a couple more size and/or reolution increases would change all of that.
How long do you think it will be before someone else says that his 45" display is all the larger anyone would ever need, so why make one larger? Whan I sold computers many thought that the 17" CRT was too larger, why go larger than 15"?
Bill the TaxMan
LittleJoe
Nov 27, 02:44 AM
http://littleemedia.com/icontrol.jpg
i was bored.
i was bored.
iJohnHenry
Apr 15, 07:31 PM
:mad::mad::mad: I am seriously starting to get pissed.
Now you know why the Vatican is getting concerned.
Knowledge is now universal, on a massive scale, and the masters of spin are hard-pressed to jump into the fray.
I want to be around for the next 10 years, just to watch. :D
Now you know why the Vatican is getting concerned.
Knowledge is now universal, on a massive scale, and the masters of spin are hard-pressed to jump into the fray.
I want to be around for the next 10 years, just to watch. :D
marksman
Mar 29, 03:56 PM
It is funny the same people who would have blasted Apple to the moon for doing something like this not only don't call Amazon out on it, but actually blame Apple for it.
It is silly yet predictable.
It is silly yet predictable.
cav23j
Nov 28, 11:30 AM
i never had any problems with the Boot Camp Partition until this
mac ran fine and i need to use Windows for certain programs
mac ran fine and i need to use Windows for certain programs
rmwebs
Apr 21, 03:56 PM
Funny to see you are basing a $4000 computer purchase on a $79 piece of crap-KEA furniture - LOL. I'm with you on Yea Apple!
Nothing wrong with a good ol' bit of Ikea furniture...as long as you stick with the higher quality (I.E non particle board) stuff they are decent...minus the assembly instructions...they should be burnt!
Nothing wrong with a good ol' bit of Ikea furniture...as long as you stick with the higher quality (I.E non particle board) stuff they are decent...minus the assembly instructions...they should be burnt!
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar