madhatter61
Mar 26, 11:43 PM
The upgrade timing of ipad2 caught the key competitors by surprise. They had designs based on ipad. the dual core processor was an easy one to anticipate, but the dual chip GPU with the unexpected graphics performance boost via the Power VR SGX 543M2 with double the memory and other technical goodies makes the iPad2 a first class upgrade. As the software developments come along ... I would expect this design to certainly carry well into next year. There is no way Retina is feasible and a quad core is just way out. A lot more "I want" than practical in a business sense. Hardware always comes first, then the software. The apps developers are just getting started with this new stuff... and the rumor (which is all it is) that iPad3 will be here is 6 months just is pure foolishness. But the media hype just keeps chewing this idea ... Give it a rest... how about some realism. The gaming performance and the interfacing with the big Screen TV is much more likely to grow very rapidly... it is already beginning to show.
ThaDoggg
Apr 26, 04:23 PM
Oh well who cares besides shareholders? As long as we keep getting quality products with stable software we should be happy.
wacky4alanis
Nov 4, 04:17 PM
It is cheaper to buy a standalone unit. But then you have to carry around 2 things instead of 1. For some people (including me), that is the major selling point of using the iPhone for navigation. I don't like bringing stuff with me when I travel. The more my iPhone can do, the less junk I need to take with me. It has already replaced my iPod and my laptop. If it can replace my Garmin too, I'm willing to pay extra to make it work.
As for the apps that download maps on the fly, I'm not interested in those as my ONLY navigation solution. There are plenty of places I drive that don't have any cell coverage at all, let alone 3G. I want an app that has the maps preloaded. I haven't decided between the available apps yet, but I am leaning towards Navigon. If their traffic thingy works well, I'll most likely go that route.
As for the apps that download maps on the fly, I'm not interested in those as my ONLY navigation solution. There are plenty of places I drive that don't have any cell coverage at all, let alone 3G. I want an app that has the maps preloaded. I haven't decided between the available apps yet, but I am leaning towards Navigon. If their traffic thingy works well, I'll most likely go that route.
dethmaShine
May 4, 06:03 PM
It'd be cool for Apple to start building a small, fast SSD "drive" (memory chips) into every Mac, that would be dedicated to the core System, and only the System. Small enough to be inexpensive, large enough to easily accommodate current and future System files, fast enough to be faster than any current hard drive. Make the drive say 32 GB, with two partitions. One partition holds the installed System, the other partition is just scratch space for downloaded and uninstalled software, including the System itself. Possibly this partition contains some minimal boot system in order to re-download and install the package from the app store in case the installation gets botched.
I think that has been the idea in the recent disclosures. In my opinion, with the next iMac refresh/redesign, Apple will incorporate a small SSD for system tasks. But I don't think Apple will waste a partition of the expensive and intelligent SSD for just an OS Install.
SSD caching is going to be very important in the future so wasting 4 or 8 gigs of space for no reason sounds a bit stupid to be honest.
But on the same track, Apple could well include the OS in a partition on the HDD itself. Why not? Instead of giving 995.5 GB (out of TB) to users after the OS install, give 990GB. For a user buying more than 500GB of HDD or HDD+SSD combined, it doesn't make much a difference; also make it optional.
I think I did mention this in one of my previous posts that Apple should keep the OS in the HDD itself so there's no need of a disc in most situations.
I think that has been the idea in the recent disclosures. In my opinion, with the next iMac refresh/redesign, Apple will incorporate a small SSD for system tasks. But I don't think Apple will waste a partition of the expensive and intelligent SSD for just an OS Install.
SSD caching is going to be very important in the future so wasting 4 or 8 gigs of space for no reason sounds a bit stupid to be honest.
But on the same track, Apple could well include the OS in a partition on the HDD itself. Why not? Instead of giving 995.5 GB (out of TB) to users after the OS install, give 990GB. For a user buying more than 500GB of HDD or HDD+SSD combined, it doesn't make much a difference; also make it optional.
I think I did mention this in one of my previous posts that Apple should keep the OS in the HDD itself so there's no need of a disc in most situations.
Gepat
Jul 30, 05:06 AM
I guess the guy who told you that story can kiss his career (with apple) goodbye ;) There's not that many photographers who take pictures of upcoming Apple products ...
Anyway, I can't wait to see the phone...
Anyway, I can't wait to see the phone...
ravenvii
May 5, 08:49 AM
ravenvii, correct me if i am wrong, but wouldn't the points remaining be 2, and not 3, since in the turn he summoned and placed the goblin he would not be collecting any point?
vR1T1:collect 1 point, TP=1
vR1T2:use point for goblin, TP=0
vR2T1: collect point?. TP=1?
vR2T2: collect point?, TP=2?
Assuming the goblin costs one point, let's say the villain does this:
R1T1 Collect 1 point
R1T2 Collect 1 point, summon Goblin
R2T1 Collect 1 point
R2T2 Collect 1 point
Villain now has 3 points left, see?
***
Loras turned around and regarded the room they found themselves in. As the rest of the group walked around the Goblin's head to join Loras in the middle of the room, they found that their torch was barely enough to put the entire room into view.
It was a empty room, with decrepit walls and cracks along the once-magnificent floor. All they could see on the floor is the body of the Goblin near the far wall, it's head near the door they came through, and unfortunate Wilmer's body lying near another door.
THERE ARE NOTHING IN THE ROOM.
vR1T1:collect 1 point, TP=1
vR1T2:use point for goblin, TP=0
vR2T1: collect point?. TP=1?
vR2T2: collect point?, TP=2?
Assuming the goblin costs one point, let's say the villain does this:
R1T1 Collect 1 point
R1T2 Collect 1 point, summon Goblin
R2T1 Collect 1 point
R2T2 Collect 1 point
Villain now has 3 points left, see?
***
Loras turned around and regarded the room they found themselves in. As the rest of the group walked around the Goblin's head to join Loras in the middle of the room, they found that their torch was barely enough to put the entire room into view.
It was a empty room, with decrepit walls and cracks along the once-magnificent floor. All they could see on the floor is the body of the Goblin near the far wall, it's head near the door they came through, and unfortunate Wilmer's body lying near another door.
THERE ARE NOTHING IN THE ROOM.
tipdrill407
Aug 7, 07:14 PM
There are many of you I want to beat with a spiky stick right now. Let's consolidate you into one bullet-point list of whiners:
queen elizabeth family tree.
queen elizabeth family tree.
queen elizabeth family tree.
queen elizabeth 2nd family
queen elizabeth family tree.
queen elizabeth family tree.
queen elizabeth family tree.
queen elizabeth family tree.
queen elizabeth family tree.
Queen Elizabeth 1 Family Tree
queen elizabeth family tree.
queen elizabeth family tree.
Nuvi
May 7, 01:04 PM
One question it raises: How will Apple handle paying customers' subscriptions that expire after the point this takes effect?
If this happens I'll bet only very limited number of features will be free. MobileMe subscribers will be getting another upgrade on iDisk space etc. I'll bet when iWork on-line document share is finally released you have to be paid MobileMe subscriber to use it.
Anyway, regarding the current price I think its too high when you look at the feature set. Then again I've been using it for over five years and never paid the full price...
If this happens I'll bet only very limited number of features will be free. MobileMe subscribers will be getting another upgrade on iDisk space etc. I'll bet when iWork on-line document share is finally released you have to be paid MobileMe subscriber to use it.
Anyway, regarding the current price I think its too high when you look at the feature set. Then again I've been using it for over five years and never paid the full price...
iMikeT
Aug 7, 08:18 PM
I can't wait until I have the money for one of these.:rolleyes:
Anyway, I am surprised that they were announced so early during the keynote.
Anyway, I am surprised that they were announced so early during the keynote.
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."
iWonderwhy
Nov 2, 08:30 PM
Sophos, cool.
Chris Bangle
Sep 11, 01:12 PM
Am I the only one hoping that Apple adds Firewire use to the iPods again?
I want firewire aswell usb 1 is far toooo slow. How my sposed to transfer films with USB, It will take all day.
I want firewire aswell usb 1 is far toooo slow. How my sposed to transfer films with USB, It will take all day.
BC2009
Apr 7, 12:09 PM
Apple does learn from the competition... no doubt. And competition is always good. But, at the same time, Apple does seem to be the one that does something different and changes the game way more than the others.
Apple is extremely proactive. Which means they have a plan in place. When competition does something good that fits with their plans, then Apple can add it as a line item to their existing plans and assign it to a specific iOS release.
The competition on the other hand is defining their plans and goals completely based on what Apple does or what Apple's critics are saying. They do not have a very long-term vision of where they want to be and are by-and-large reactionary to what Apple is doing.
I will say that Google does indeed have a long-term vision, but not for Android's features. Google's long-term vision is to do anything they can to ensure they sit in between the user and the information on the Internet so they can advertise to them. They see Facebook as a major threat in this regard as well as Apple. Google's long-term plans are being disrupted by these other major players. Android/Honeycomb is a reactionary attempt to correct for some of that.
Apple is extremely proactive. Which means they have a plan in place. When competition does something good that fits with their plans, then Apple can add it as a line item to their existing plans and assign it to a specific iOS release.
The competition on the other hand is defining their plans and goals completely based on what Apple does or what Apple's critics are saying. They do not have a very long-term vision of where they want to be and are by-and-large reactionary to what Apple is doing.
I will say that Google does indeed have a long-term vision, but not for Android's features. Google's long-term vision is to do anything they can to ensure they sit in between the user and the information on the Internet so they can advertise to them. They see Facebook as a major threat in this regard as well as Apple. Google's long-term plans are being disrupted by these other major players. Android/Honeycomb is a reactionary attempt to correct for some of that.
poe diddley
Aug 7, 08:17 PM
ok im super duper glad they finally released it
and i'm happy about it being quad processor and the quad 3ghz is soooo dreamy
but i have mixed feelings about the case
on one hand i'm glad they stuck with the look of the g5 powermac,
and didnt go to some plastic looking crap (i love the brushed aluminum look)
but i wish they would have made it a little different looking
and i'm happy about it being quad processor and the quad 3ghz is soooo dreamy
but i have mixed feelings about the case
on one hand i'm glad they stuck with the look of the g5 powermac,
and didnt go to some plastic looking crap (i love the brushed aluminum look)
but i wish they would have made it a little different looking
applexpanther
Mar 29, 11:35 AM
Nobody forces you to store your music there. You can always store it on your computer if you want. Funny how you can see extra feature as a "limitation". I bet that when Apple offers similar service (just more expensive) you'll call it a "revolutionary" feature.
No one forces you now. I was talking in terms of future limitations. I was also speaking in the abstract, meaning any company to offer a service of this nature will "probably" impose some sort of restrictions to gouge money from the consumer. Again, speaking in future terms. Otherwise, what is the point of building some grand service if it has no advantage economically? Companies are out to make money.
No one forces you now. I was talking in terms of future limitations. I was also speaking in the abstract, meaning any company to offer a service of this nature will "probably" impose some sort of restrictions to gouge money from the consumer. Again, speaking in future terms. Otherwise, what is the point of building some grand service if it has no advantage economically? Companies are out to make money.
WiiDSmoker
Apr 20, 07:37 AM
This model hasn't promised anything yet because no one but Apple knows what's in store. I don't see any cosmetic changes in store, and the iPhone 4 still looks better than every handset out to date. However don't count your chickens before they hatch!
Sorry but my phone has never been dropped. Speak for yourself when you say it's going to get dropped. Not all of us are as clumsy as you and your friends apparently.
How about glass that doesn't get scratched when a piece of hair lands on it?
Sorry but my phone has never been dropped. Speak for yourself when you say it's going to get dropped. Not all of us are as clumsy as you and your friends apparently.
How about glass that doesn't get scratched when a piece of hair lands on it?
charlituna
Mar 27, 12:39 AM
I just forked over 750 dollars for an ipad 2 and ipad 3 is coming out? Ouch!!! I already want it.
I don't really buy that rumor. Apple rarely to never does a six month cycle on anything and shifting the iPad to the fall means no major product to help keep the stock price nice and high.
Plus an iPad on top of the new pods means more chaos for the retail staff, which I can't see them doing.
If anything I could see them shifting the iPads to late Jan or early Feb next go around and moving the spring laptops closer to the start of their annual back to school promo
I don't really buy that rumor. Apple rarely to never does a six month cycle on anything and shifting the iPad to the fall means no major product to help keep the stock price nice and high.
Plus an iPad on top of the new pods means more chaos for the retail staff, which I can't see them doing.
If anything I could see them shifting the iPads to late Jan or early Feb next go around and moving the spring laptops closer to the start of their annual back to school promo
callmemike20
Apr 22, 12:13 PM
It would be a lot harder to cheat a value added tax than income tax.
Plus it would take no time or money to fill out
it would naturally put a larger burden on the rich who spend more
it would be simple to raise/lower
It would naturally exempt charitable giving
it would reduce the tax-code a few thousand pages
It would reduce the need to pay to keep up the IRS program
nobody would be in debt to the IRS
Payroll taxes would be easier to manage
My dad spends two full weeks, and hire personal assistants in order to file taxes as it is. Value added tax instead of income tax would be a blessing
or even a less complicated flat income tax rate would be an improvement
You just overlooked an elephant. Why would you want to discourage consumer spending? In today's economy, the government and markets are working hard to get people interested in buying again. A VAT tax would only discourage that. A VAT and no income tax would only encourage people to save more than to spend. We need people to spend or no jobs will be created.
Plus it would take no time or money to fill out
it would naturally put a larger burden on the rich who spend more
it would be simple to raise/lower
It would naturally exempt charitable giving
it would reduce the tax-code a few thousand pages
It would reduce the need to pay to keep up the IRS program
nobody would be in debt to the IRS
Payroll taxes would be easier to manage
My dad spends two full weeks, and hire personal assistants in order to file taxes as it is. Value added tax instead of income tax would be a blessing
or even a less complicated flat income tax rate would be an improvement
You just overlooked an elephant. Why would you want to discourage consumer spending? In today's economy, the government and markets are working hard to get people interested in buying again. A VAT tax would only discourage that. A VAT and no income tax would only encourage people to save more than to spend. We need people to spend or no jobs will be created.
ECUpirate44
Apr 9, 07:15 PM
Is this MacRumors or GoogleRumors?
Do you really think the answer is 2? lol.
Do you really think the answer is 2? lol.
Littleodie914
Mar 29, 08:38 AM
Dang... I feel like $80 a month is a LOT of money for 1TB of space. Especially when you can pay $70 ONCE and get your own 1TB drive.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822324041&cm_re=1tb-_-22-324-041-_-Product
Of course there are many benefits of having your data "in the cloud," but I think their prices are way too high.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822324041&cm_re=1tb-_-22-324-041-_-Product
Of course there are many benefits of having your data "in the cloud," but I think their prices are way too high.
orthorim
Apr 25, 07:34 AM
Well, we will have to disagree there :)
I think Apple puts form/Style above function, and will make a device that does not work very well, or is comfortable/practical for a human to use, simply so that it looks cool and people want to buy it.
Is that why you bought the iPad? One would think if you have an iPad, you'd already see the error in judgement that you made there. Just because Apple stuff looks cool doesn't mean it's sacrificing function - to the contrary.
If you've used an iPhone, or iPad, for any period of time you'd know that.
Other computer makers put wavy lines, green blinking lights and all sorts of other kitsch on their machines - by kitsch I mean design features that have no function, that are there only to look "good".
When has Apple made a device that didn't work very well??? You'd have to go all the way to the Newton for that. And that happened while Steve Jobs was away, not a co-incidence. Ever since the iPod, it's been hit after hit.
I think Apple puts form/Style above function, and will make a device that does not work very well, or is comfortable/practical for a human to use, simply so that it looks cool and people want to buy it.
Is that why you bought the iPad? One would think if you have an iPad, you'd already see the error in judgement that you made there. Just because Apple stuff looks cool doesn't mean it's sacrificing function - to the contrary.
If you've used an iPhone, or iPad, for any period of time you'd know that.
Other computer makers put wavy lines, green blinking lights and all sorts of other kitsch on their machines - by kitsch I mean design features that have no function, that are there only to look "good".
When has Apple made a device that didn't work very well??? You'd have to go all the way to the Newton for that. And that happened while Steve Jobs was away, not a co-incidence. Ever since the iPod, it's been hit after hit.
Josias
Aug 5, 03:00 AM
What I really want Apple to announce:
PowerMac (not MacPro FFS!:p )
ACD's (17, 20, 23 and 30", iSight and IR)
iPhone (http://www.floatingpears.com/garage/iPhone.jpg):rolleyes:
Leopard (iChat integration with MSN Messenger:D )
New MBP and iMac...
PowerMac (not MacPro FFS!:p )
ACD's (17, 20, 23 and 30", iSight and IR)
iPhone (http://www.floatingpears.com/garage/iPhone.jpg):rolleyes:
Leopard (iChat integration with MSN Messenger:D )
New MBP and iMac...
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? :-)
wschutz
Mar 30, 05:55 PM
Dear Apple
PLEASE can we have a UI update, even if it's a minor one (for instance, iTunes 10 scrollbars rather than the blue aqua ones). Just some extra polish really.
Signed
iFanboy
Enjoy your brand new 129$ Mac OS X latest revision (the most advanced, the most unique, the most... bla bla bla bla...) carrying more than XXX features (aka... just making the Mac OS X experience more iOS-alike so you get used to AppStore since soon you'll have to go through this method of delivery as there won't be any other one, because Mr. Jobs wants more money...)
Yep... I think that 129$ sounds quite ok, for nothing :D
Though I'm not surprise... there's nothing shocking that they can implement. This "update" is aimed at training people into AppStore (aka money)... and they even charge for it :D
PLEASE can we have a UI update, even if it's a minor one (for instance, iTunes 10 scrollbars rather than the blue aqua ones). Just some extra polish really.
Signed
iFanboy
Enjoy your brand new 129$ Mac OS X latest revision (the most advanced, the most unique, the most... bla bla bla bla...) carrying more than XXX features (aka... just making the Mac OS X experience more iOS-alike so you get used to AppStore since soon you'll have to go through this method of delivery as there won't be any other one, because Mr. Jobs wants more money...)
Yep... I think that 129$ sounds quite ok, for nothing :D
Though I'm not surprise... there's nothing shocking that they can implement. This "update" is aimed at training people into AppStore (aka money)... and they even charge for it :D
No comments:
Post a Comment