Xeperu
Mar 22, 01:06 PM
My take on this.
The good:
1. Great specs
2. Great price
3. Great form factor
The Bad:
1. Looks plastic fantastic
2. Android (as in: bad ecosystem)
My verdict:
No thanks, I prefer the guarantee for fresh apps and business support that iOS provides me.
The good:
1. Great specs
2. Great price
3. Great form factor
The Bad:
1. Looks plastic fantastic
2. Android (as in: bad ecosystem)
My verdict:
No thanks, I prefer the guarantee for fresh apps and business support that iOS provides me.
macaddiict
Apr 25, 01:37 PM
I haven't read this lawsuit, so I don't know if they're claiming things that aren't true... but I really do not like the fact that the iPhone has a breadcrumbs database of my travels for the last 3 years!
This type of thing should not happen without users' knowledge... and it was. Or else this file would not be news!
This type of thing should not happen without users' knowledge... and it was. Or else this file would not be news!
Cobrien
Aug 5, 03:26 PM
I heard a rumour somewhere of an all metallic ipod nano, can anyone else tell me if they have heard anything similar.
dornoforpyros
Sep 18, 11:20 PM
I'm still hoping for another sneaky update like they just did with the minis & iMacs, come on Wednesday!
iliketyla
Mar 31, 08:46 PM
This is where the Android "community" is going to split.
The ones we've heard from today don't give a crap about "open" or "closed" or Google or anything else other than the fact that Android is not Apple and is stealing some sales from Apple. They'll defend whatever Google does, because all they want is a platform that's not by Apple to take over the mobile space.
The true believers in the "open" propaganda, as ridiculous as it is and as untrue as it's always been, are probably still in a state of shock. By tomorrow they'll split into two warring camps. One will defend everything Google does because they perceive—wrongly of course—that Android is still in some indefinable way more open than iOS, and they'll blow that little invisible kernel of "openness" up until that's all they can see.
The other camp will be viciously angry at Google's betrayal of the True Religion™ and will be flailing around for some other messiah to deliver them from the "Walled Garden" of Apple and now, Android. These are the people who were saying the other day that "Motorola could rot" with their own OS.
Any suggestions on who the zealots will turn to in their hour of despair? I honestly can't think of a candidate, but then I'm not nuts—at least not that way.
Yeah! That's what'll happen!
Or they'll do further research and realize that the implications in this SINGLE ARTICLE might not be 100% true.
To the everyday user this means NOTHING as they have no knowledge of what open truly means, and therefore can't take advantage of it.
To the users who actually have the knowhow to utilize open source operating systems, this might mean a minor hinderance, but not a complete game changer.
And for clarification, the former is the vast majority.
Did no one notice the obvious bias in this article? It's slanted, and the author clearly thinks that Google has been wrong this entire time.
The ones we've heard from today don't give a crap about "open" or "closed" or Google or anything else other than the fact that Android is not Apple and is stealing some sales from Apple. They'll defend whatever Google does, because all they want is a platform that's not by Apple to take over the mobile space.
The true believers in the "open" propaganda, as ridiculous as it is and as untrue as it's always been, are probably still in a state of shock. By tomorrow they'll split into two warring camps. One will defend everything Google does because they perceive—wrongly of course—that Android is still in some indefinable way more open than iOS, and they'll blow that little invisible kernel of "openness" up until that's all they can see.
The other camp will be viciously angry at Google's betrayal of the True Religion™ and will be flailing around for some other messiah to deliver them from the "Walled Garden" of Apple and now, Android. These are the people who were saying the other day that "Motorola could rot" with their own OS.
Any suggestions on who the zealots will turn to in their hour of despair? I honestly can't think of a candidate, but then I'm not nuts—at least not that way.
Yeah! That's what'll happen!
Or they'll do further research and realize that the implications in this SINGLE ARTICLE might not be 100% true.
To the everyday user this means NOTHING as they have no knowledge of what open truly means, and therefore can't take advantage of it.
To the users who actually have the knowhow to utilize open source operating systems, this might mean a minor hinderance, but not a complete game changer.
And for clarification, the former is the vast majority.
Did no one notice the obvious bias in this article? It's slanted, and the author clearly thinks that Google has been wrong this entire time.
zac4mac
Nov 29, 12:47 PM
I also wanted to add... go onto UNIVERSAL MUSIC GROUP (http://new.umusic.com/flash.aspx) and see how many groups you would be missing if ITUNES didn't offer Universal.
If you need "98 DEGREES" on your iPOD, then you better start freaking out...
Otherwise, don't sweat it. Universal has nothing to threaten Apple with. No worries here.
I went there, made it thru the "D"s and came up with these artists in my digital collection:
Aaron Neville
Al Jarreau
BB King
Big Bad Voodoo Daddy
Blues Traveller
Bob Marley and the Wailers
Cardigans
Counting Crows
Cowboy Mouth
Cranberries
David Benoit
Def Leppard
Del Amitri
There's a boat-load more there, yes they're a BIG label.
Z
If you need "98 DEGREES" on your iPOD, then you better start freaking out...
Otherwise, don't sweat it. Universal has nothing to threaten Apple with. No worries here.
I went there, made it thru the "D"s and came up with these artists in my digital collection:
Aaron Neville
Al Jarreau
BB King
Big Bad Voodoo Daddy
Blues Traveller
Bob Marley and the Wailers
Cardigans
Counting Crows
Cowboy Mouth
Cranberries
David Benoit
Def Leppard
Del Amitri
There's a boat-load more there, yes they're a BIG label.
Z
hayesk
Mar 23, 10:08 AM
Sorry, completely forgot about that.
iOS rocks in apps, but it does suck *** in terms of notifications and true multitasking.
iOS doesn't suck in terms of true multitasking because it doesn't use "true" multitasking. iOS excels at using a form of multitasking that is appropriate for the hardware it is running on.
iOS rocks in apps, but it does suck *** in terms of notifications and true multitasking.
iOS doesn't suck in terms of true multitasking because it doesn't use "true" multitasking. iOS excels at using a form of multitasking that is appropriate for the hardware it is running on.
skunk
Aug 6, 01:45 PM
Um, http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=odbjam.2.2Apple is described as an "Applicant".
BaldiMac
Apr 19, 02:27 PM
So the interesting fact is:
Verizon iPhone release didn't help Apple to stop losing marketshare although everyone said the deal will quadruple iPhone sales. :rolleyes:
iPhone Q1/11: 19 million (+ 2.5 million)
Android Q1/11: 38 million (+8 million)
Ouch. No wonder they are now sueing HTC and Samsung. If you can't beat them in the market, beat them in court. Apple must have learned that from Nokia (like they learned the choppy animations when you start third party apps in iOS 4.3.2 from Symbian).
Sigh. The iPhone is still gaining market share. Not losing market share.
Verizon iPhone release didn't help Apple to stop losing marketshare although everyone said the deal will quadruple iPhone sales. :rolleyes:
iPhone Q1/11: 19 million (+ 2.5 million)
Android Q1/11: 38 million (+8 million)
Ouch. No wonder they are now sueing HTC and Samsung. If you can't beat them in the market, beat them in court. Apple must have learned that from Nokia (like they learned the choppy animations when you start third party apps in iOS 4.3.2 from Symbian).
Sigh. The iPhone is still gaining market share. Not losing market share.
WildCowboy
Aug 17, 01:01 AM
This is a very dumb question but is Photoshop running under rosetta in this test?
If Photoshop is that is nuts.
Yes...Photoshop can only run under Rosetta on the Intel machines...there's no universal version of it.
If Photoshop is that is nuts.
Yes...Photoshop can only run under Rosetta on the Intel machines...there's no universal version of it.
jlewis2k1
Aug 11, 11:41 AM
am i the only one here that really thinks this is just a pathetic to even think apple is coming out with a phone? Personally, I can not see apple coming out with one. Honestly, I'm quite sick of hearing all of these posts about potential iPhone stuff. i just dont believe it would happen.
gnasher729
Jul 27, 05:59 PM
but is still more productive because it handles more calculations per clock cycle
I'm no processor geek. I have a basic understanding of the terminology and how things work so correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this one of the advantages that the PPC had over Intel chips? Does this mean Intel is moving toward shorter pipes? Are we talking more instructions per clock cycle or what? What does "calculations" mean in this context?
With most processors, especially the Intel/AMD processors, "instructions per cycle" is not a useful number. These processors have both simple instructions (add register number 3 to register number 6) and complex instructions (add register number 3 to the number whose address is in register number 6). A PowerPC has the simple instructions, but not the complex ones. Instead it would need three instructions "load the number whose address is in register number 6, and move it to register 7", "add register 3 to register 7", "store register 7 to the location whose address is in register 6". But the Intel processor doesn't magically do three times as much work. Instead, it splits the complex instruction into three so-called "macro-ops", and does exactly the same work. So in this case, the PowerPC would execute three times as many instructions per cycle (3 instead of 1), but because it doesn't do more actual work, that is pointless. Instead you would count the number of operations, and they are more or less the same.
Intel is indeed moving towards shorter pipelines. They have done that already with the Core Duo chips. Longer pipelines have the advantage that each pipeline step is a bit faster, so you can get higher clockspeed. Shorter pipelines have the advantage that they take much less energy (very important; at some point your chips just melt), they are much faster handling branches, and they are just much much easier to design. Pentium 4 needed absolutely heroic efforts to produce it, and would have needed twice the heroics to improve it. Instead, the Core Duo has a much simpler design, that is just as powerful, and because it was so simple, Core 2 Duo could improve it.
And Core 2 Duo can now execute up to four "micro-ops" per cycle, same as the G5, compared to three for Core Duo, Pentium 4 and G4. It also has some clever features that reduce the number of micro-ops needed up to 10 percent, and some other improvements.
I'm no processor geek. I have a basic understanding of the terminology and how things work so correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this one of the advantages that the PPC had over Intel chips? Does this mean Intel is moving toward shorter pipes? Are we talking more instructions per clock cycle or what? What does "calculations" mean in this context?
With most processors, especially the Intel/AMD processors, "instructions per cycle" is not a useful number. These processors have both simple instructions (add register number 3 to register number 6) and complex instructions (add register number 3 to the number whose address is in register number 6). A PowerPC has the simple instructions, but not the complex ones. Instead it would need three instructions "load the number whose address is in register number 6, and move it to register 7", "add register 3 to register 7", "store register 7 to the location whose address is in register 6". But the Intel processor doesn't magically do three times as much work. Instead, it splits the complex instruction into three so-called "macro-ops", and does exactly the same work. So in this case, the PowerPC would execute three times as many instructions per cycle (3 instead of 1), but because it doesn't do more actual work, that is pointless. Instead you would count the number of operations, and they are more or less the same.
Intel is indeed moving towards shorter pipelines. They have done that already with the Core Duo chips. Longer pipelines have the advantage that each pipeline step is a bit faster, so you can get higher clockspeed. Shorter pipelines have the advantage that they take much less energy (very important; at some point your chips just melt), they are much faster handling branches, and they are just much much easier to design. Pentium 4 needed absolutely heroic efforts to produce it, and would have needed twice the heroics to improve it. Instead, the Core Duo has a much simpler design, that is just as powerful, and because it was so simple, Core 2 Duo could improve it.
And Core 2 Duo can now execute up to four "micro-ops" per cycle, same as the G5, compared to three for Core Duo, Pentium 4 and G4. It also has some clever features that reduce the number of micro-ops needed up to 10 percent, and some other improvements.
smaffei
Apr 27, 08:05 AM
A lot of people are upset over this. But, no one seems to care that the US Government can snoop on any electronic communication it wants for well over 10 years now: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echelon_(signals_intelligence)
Data transmissions, cell phone calls, you name it. I think we're trying to cook the wrong goose if you ask me.
Data transmissions, cell phone calls, you name it. I think we're trying to cook the wrong goose if you ask me.
M-O
Apr 25, 01:35 PM
wow, this has officially been blown out of proportion!
SRSound
Nov 28, 06:29 PM
here we go again
Blue Velvet
Mar 23, 11:29 AM
I certainly realize that the circumstances are different, but the fact remains, we launched missiles at another country.
You've been doing it since the 1940s without congressional approval. Why so concerned about it now? Why this particular president? Were you personally concerned when it was done in Bosnia or Iraq? Do you realise that missiles have been launched into Pakistan from drones for many years, yet no declaration of war on Pakistan...
Or are you just parroting the latest conservative reason to oppose Obama's actions? Obama: whatever he's for, I'm against. Is that it?
You've been doing it since the 1940s without congressional approval. Why so concerned about it now? Why this particular president? Were you personally concerned when it was done in Bosnia or Iraq? Do you realise that missiles have been launched into Pakistan from drones for many years, yet no declaration of war on Pakistan...
Or are you just parroting the latest conservative reason to oppose Obama's actions? Obama: whatever he's for, I'm against. Is that it?
zin
Mar 22, 12:52 PM
A 5 gram drop in weight? And people said Apple's effort at reducing weight was bad. :rolleyes:
crees!
Jul 14, 03:01 PM
Could ThinkSecret's "radical design" posting have been geared toward the rumor of a compact motherboard which is now suspected to be more "normal" in dimensions?
jmbear
Nov 29, 12:39 PM
See, that's the catch-22 for new artists. The labels are the ones that get tunes played on the radio. In the 50's and 60's they would strong-arm their stuff in, but I'm sure even nowadays they provide incentives (read: bribes) to get new stuff on the air. Especially if they think the band is really good and will make it in the long run. And don't fool yourself into thinking a new band can get huge without radio.
The internet can become the new radio. I am quite fond of looking for pre-made playlists, I will get the songs on LimeWire, listen to them, the ones I like, I buy legally, the ones I don�t I delete them. You don�t get commercials, just music. I am not saying that radio is going to dissapear completely. TV didn�t kill it. But its importance will diminish.
The problem is that the labels get the artists by the balls when they sign them up to ridiculous contracts. Your 1-4 examples look pretty good on paper, but in order to sell any significant number of copies of their music, anyone wanting it (but doesn't know it yet) has to wade through tons of (what that persons sees as) crap just to get any exposure to something they'll consider good. I'm sure there's a lot of music in the indie catalog that I would just love, but I don't have the time to wade through it all to find it. Instead, I'll listen to the radio and when I hear something I like, I'll try to pay attention to who it is. I may or may not end up buying it, or checking out what else they do, but without radio exposure, most good indie bands don't have a chance in hell of selling to anyone except those that happen to be in the bar where they're playing one weekend..
iTMS could potentially change this. There are some people that will do all the research for you (as in what is good music), then ratings will allow you to get the good songs! It�s similar (and somebody will flame me for saying this) to researching a product on Amazon or CNET, you usually look for a LCD screen, all the results pop, and you will go for the ones with the highest ratings, read the comments and eventually make up your mind. Some day you will look up for electronic music (which I love), all the DJ�s will pop, you will pick the highest rated songs or playlists (because most people like a song because other people like it), listen to their songs for free (yeah, just like radio), and then buy them if you want.
Now, if you take a look at already established and popular bands, that's a different story. Someone mentioned huge bands like Pink Floyd. Their last couple of CDs didn't need a big label to sell. People were going to buy it if they like Floyd no matter what. And in a case of that kind of popularity, the radio stations were going to play them with or without a major label. The same could be applied to other huge (classic) rock bands, as well as established artists in other music styles (country, rap, R&B, blues, etc...). Another example would be someone like Eric Clapton. He could put one out on "Clapton Records" and would sell nearly, if not exactly, the same number of CDs as he will on a major label..
I agree record labels + good music = superstars like Calpton, Floyd, U2 etc... But these bands became popular in a different time (before the internet). Internet is changing the record labels� business model, and that is what they afraid of. The new wait of creating bands and distributing their music is not as profitable for them as it used to.
Unfortunately, the number of artists (of any type of music) that could dismiss the labels and still sell as many CDs and get the same radio exposure are limited. And any new band is going to go nowhere without radio (or MTV/VH1) exposure.
Internet is offering them exposure. Right now MTV and VH1 are still popular. But YouTube, Yahoo!, MSN could become the new MTV and VH1.
Not really relevant, but interesting to think about is that most of you have probably seen the video of the ruma ruma guy (I can�t link it because I am at work and the proxie does not allow me to visit YouTube). But how many have actually seen the video for the song? YouTube made that fat kid a star, and most people probably know his face better than the guys that sing the song. Exposure.
In the end, I don't see the labels going away totally any time soon. They're in cahoots with the big FM music stations and in general, they do a good job of promoting new good bands that sign up. It's just a shame that there's really nothing to keep them from raping the artists. If there were just some way for new bands to get exposure to the masses without having to sell their souls to the labels then things would be better. Unfortunately, the Internet can only go so far in helping a new band with this.
I agree, they won�t go away anytime soon, but change is coming, and change will be good for artists and consumers, not for the record labels.
Sorry for my weird grammar or mispells, I am not a native english speaker, I don�t have a spell checker on this computer (in english at least) and I am too lazy to proof read what I wrote lol :)
The internet can become the new radio. I am quite fond of looking for pre-made playlists, I will get the songs on LimeWire, listen to them, the ones I like, I buy legally, the ones I don�t I delete them. You don�t get commercials, just music. I am not saying that radio is going to dissapear completely. TV didn�t kill it. But its importance will diminish.
The problem is that the labels get the artists by the balls when they sign them up to ridiculous contracts. Your 1-4 examples look pretty good on paper, but in order to sell any significant number of copies of their music, anyone wanting it (but doesn't know it yet) has to wade through tons of (what that persons sees as) crap just to get any exposure to something they'll consider good. I'm sure there's a lot of music in the indie catalog that I would just love, but I don't have the time to wade through it all to find it. Instead, I'll listen to the radio and when I hear something I like, I'll try to pay attention to who it is. I may or may not end up buying it, or checking out what else they do, but without radio exposure, most good indie bands don't have a chance in hell of selling to anyone except those that happen to be in the bar where they're playing one weekend..
iTMS could potentially change this. There are some people that will do all the research for you (as in what is good music), then ratings will allow you to get the good songs! It�s similar (and somebody will flame me for saying this) to researching a product on Amazon or CNET, you usually look for a LCD screen, all the results pop, and you will go for the ones with the highest ratings, read the comments and eventually make up your mind. Some day you will look up for electronic music (which I love), all the DJ�s will pop, you will pick the highest rated songs or playlists (because most people like a song because other people like it), listen to their songs for free (yeah, just like radio), and then buy them if you want.
Now, if you take a look at already established and popular bands, that's a different story. Someone mentioned huge bands like Pink Floyd. Their last couple of CDs didn't need a big label to sell. People were going to buy it if they like Floyd no matter what. And in a case of that kind of popularity, the radio stations were going to play them with or without a major label. The same could be applied to other huge (classic) rock bands, as well as established artists in other music styles (country, rap, R&B, blues, etc...). Another example would be someone like Eric Clapton. He could put one out on "Clapton Records" and would sell nearly, if not exactly, the same number of CDs as he will on a major label..
I agree record labels + good music = superstars like Calpton, Floyd, U2 etc... But these bands became popular in a different time (before the internet). Internet is changing the record labels� business model, and that is what they afraid of. The new wait of creating bands and distributing their music is not as profitable for them as it used to.
Unfortunately, the number of artists (of any type of music) that could dismiss the labels and still sell as many CDs and get the same radio exposure are limited. And any new band is going to go nowhere without radio (or MTV/VH1) exposure.
Internet is offering them exposure. Right now MTV and VH1 are still popular. But YouTube, Yahoo!, MSN could become the new MTV and VH1.
Not really relevant, but interesting to think about is that most of you have probably seen the video of the ruma ruma guy (I can�t link it because I am at work and the proxie does not allow me to visit YouTube). But how many have actually seen the video for the song? YouTube made that fat kid a star, and most people probably know his face better than the guys that sing the song. Exposure.
In the end, I don't see the labels going away totally any time soon. They're in cahoots with the big FM music stations and in general, they do a good job of promoting new good bands that sign up. It's just a shame that there's really nothing to keep them from raping the artists. If there were just some way for new bands to get exposure to the masses without having to sell their souls to the labels then things would be better. Unfortunately, the Internet can only go so far in helping a new band with this.
I agree, they won�t go away anytime soon, but change is coming, and change will be good for artists and consumers, not for the record labels.
Sorry for my weird grammar or mispells, I am not a native english speaker, I don�t have a spell checker on this computer (in english at least) and I am too lazy to proof read what I wrote lol :)
JDawg76
Jul 20, 12:53 PM
Anyone on here agree that we are entering the world of PC's of sh*ot in the way where we buy a Mac and 2 months later there's news of something better down the road? Or is this just for now since this is the transition period for Apple to the Intel chips. Just curious.
thisisahughes
Apr 6, 04:26 PM
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)
I don't really watch television at all, so I was just wondering if there are many commercials for tablets besides the iPad?
I can't recall ever seeing a Xoom commercial even in passing, although I have seen an iPad commercial.
I see the same Xoom commercial 100 times a day.
I don't really watch television at all, so I was just wondering if there are many commercials for tablets besides the iPad?
I can't recall ever seeing a Xoom commercial even in passing, although I have seen an iPad commercial.
I see the same Xoom commercial 100 times a day.
enil8tr1
Mar 22, 03:56 PM
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1561238414/tapose-bringing-the-courier-to-the-ipad?ref=recently_launched
dscuber9000
Apr 27, 02:57 PM
The birthers have moved on to say that because Obama "doesn't have allegiance to America" or some BS like that, he is now no longer a natural born citizen (http://www.birthers.org/). :rolleyes:
Erasmus
Jul 20, 11:21 PM
The nec-plus-ultra would be thinking of a result and getting it (or saying it to your computer) like a photoshop user going: "Well, I would like the sun being more dominant in that picture, the power lines removed, and make those persons look younger". Boom. It happens.
<offtopic>
That would require Artificial Intelligence. If a computer can understand your speech, recognise your choice of words and understands that you don't neccessarily mean what you say all the time, then that's AI. If it can recognise specific objects in an "analogue" media such as a photograph, (I don't care if its a digital photo or not), it's AI. If it can then implement what it has learned alongside its infinite computational precision to remake a photo, while keeping it completely realistic, and making it look exactly how we wanted it to look, that's amazing, and lots of people will be out of jobs.
But if you have an AI system working for you, what's the point of working? ;)
BTW, I mean proper "hard" AI, not some pathetic "Ooh, forom your phone number you must live there, therefore I'll direct you to that Pizza Hut outlet! Aren't I smart!" type of AI.
<rant>
Erasmus 4 AI, Nuclear Power, GM, Stem Cell Research, and every other form of Science and Technology. Our lives will only benefit from all these, as will our community and our planet.
</rant>
</offtopic>
Don't Hurt Me.
I have to ask again, even though others already have, is Kentsfield a drop-in replacement for Conroe, if either a Mid-Tower or the iMac get Conroe? (Or Cloverton or whatever the desktop one is)
Still hanging out for WWDC2006.
<offtopic>
That would require Artificial Intelligence. If a computer can understand your speech, recognise your choice of words and understands that you don't neccessarily mean what you say all the time, then that's AI. If it can recognise specific objects in an "analogue" media such as a photograph, (I don't care if its a digital photo or not), it's AI. If it can then implement what it has learned alongside its infinite computational precision to remake a photo, while keeping it completely realistic, and making it look exactly how we wanted it to look, that's amazing, and lots of people will be out of jobs.
But if you have an AI system working for you, what's the point of working? ;)
BTW, I mean proper "hard" AI, not some pathetic "Ooh, forom your phone number you must live there, therefore I'll direct you to that Pizza Hut outlet! Aren't I smart!" type of AI.
<rant>
Erasmus 4 AI, Nuclear Power, GM, Stem Cell Research, and every other form of Science and Technology. Our lives will only benefit from all these, as will our community and our planet.
</rant>
</offtopic>
Don't Hurt Me.
I have to ask again, even though others already have, is Kentsfield a drop-in replacement for Conroe, if either a Mid-Tower or the iMac get Conroe? (Or Cloverton or whatever the desktop one is)
Still hanging out for WWDC2006.