ticman
Dec 10, 06:24 PM
Ok I have installed the car kit. It was more difficult than i thought ONLY because while I have a sloping dash board and it's leather, it is NOT smooth leather but rather a grainy textured leather. I could not get the plastic disk to stick to the surface--even if I put it higher up on the dash toward the windshield where it is flat. Thoughts of crazy glue were beginning to run through my mind.
I installed it on the windshield just to see if I'd like it. It was great but a tad too far to see clearly (even with glasses); I didn't like the wires hanging down; and it did draw my eye every time i used the rear view mirror and obstructed my view (but only a bit--could probably get used to it in time).
So I was at the point of wondering if I was going to return it to Apple Store when I found a space that would work that was left of the radio and had a small flat plastic area. The disk is only partially on the plastic but holds incredible firmly. By moving the suction cup to the right edge of the flat disk, I can see the entire screen easily in either portrait or landscape mode without covering the radio or any controls.
AND the unexpected PLUS is that it sits below the dashboard and won't require me to disconnect it to put in the console when away from the car. I was not comforable with the idea of leaving the kit in full view which may or may not invite break-ins. Another plus is very very little cord from kit to lighter area is needed so wires hanging or dangling are at a minimum. The wire from audio to my audio input in the center console is easily accomodated by the 3 foot audio cord. I used the plastic holders that were pictured in previous post so that wires are contained and not obtrusive.
With regards to using Bluetooth for handsfree driving. My car is very quiet and I and my callers had no problem hearing each other. I just hold the main button and do voice dialing. Piece of cake.
LOL I had the audio cord connected to the car kit but was not using audio to play music (aux was not on) and I couldn't figure out why Navigon wasn't taling to me. When I put radio on in Aux mode the instructions came through the car speakers. When I used ipod to play music and had GPS on both come through the car speakers with music volume being lowered when voice directions were being given.
All in all I am very pleased with the kit and the way it performs.
I installed it on the windshield just to see if I'd like it. It was great but a tad too far to see clearly (even with glasses); I didn't like the wires hanging down; and it did draw my eye every time i used the rear view mirror and obstructed my view (but only a bit--could probably get used to it in time).
So I was at the point of wondering if I was going to return it to Apple Store when I found a space that would work that was left of the radio and had a small flat plastic area. The disk is only partially on the plastic but holds incredible firmly. By moving the suction cup to the right edge of the flat disk, I can see the entire screen easily in either portrait or landscape mode without covering the radio or any controls.
AND the unexpected PLUS is that it sits below the dashboard and won't require me to disconnect it to put in the console when away from the car. I was not comforable with the idea of leaving the kit in full view which may or may not invite break-ins. Another plus is very very little cord from kit to lighter area is needed so wires hanging or dangling are at a minimum. The wire from audio to my audio input in the center console is easily accomodated by the 3 foot audio cord. I used the plastic holders that were pictured in previous post so that wires are contained and not obtrusive.
With regards to using Bluetooth for handsfree driving. My car is very quiet and I and my callers had no problem hearing each other. I just hold the main button and do voice dialing. Piece of cake.
LOL I had the audio cord connected to the car kit but was not using audio to play music (aux was not on) and I couldn't figure out why Navigon wasn't taling to me. When I put radio on in Aux mode the instructions came through the car speakers. When I used ipod to play music and had GPS on both come through the car speakers with music volume being lowered when voice directions were being given.
All in all I am very pleased with the kit and the way it performs.
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.
2012 mustang v6 pony package.
2012 mustang v6.
edition 2012 Mustang GT
2012 mustang gt convertible.
2012 mustang v6 premium
convertible; Mustang V6 .
2012 BMW 650i Convertible
Mustang V6 Convertible
2012 mustang gt convertible.
2012 Ford Mustang Boss 302
2012 Ford Mustang Boss 302
2012 mustang gt premium
2005 Ford Mustang GT
2012 mustang gt premium
2012 mustang gt premium
Challenger Convertible to
2012 mustang v6 premium coupe.
Oh, and please spare me the snarky "well then enjoy your HP! Har har har" comment.
drummondi
Sep 15, 11:10 PM
I've just been wanting one for so long, and all I've been waiting for is a processor trade-out, that I'll be happy with just that. Of course I'll be quite please if they implement the easy access HD bay. Better still, a better gfx card would make me pee my pants a little.
I think you should go get your prostate checked.
I think you should go get your prostate checked.
tstreete
Nov 5, 12:51 PM
Has anyone tested the unit with Navigon? That would be the only reason I would buy it.
Also, with Google coming up with a free turn-by-turn navigation app... what will happen with the ones we have to pay for?
Haven't tried it with Navigon, but I have tried it with Google Maps, MotionX GPS lite, and G-Map east, and they all work fine (i.e., using the TomTom mount's gps, not the iphone's internal one), so I can't think of a reason why Navigon wouldn't work.
Also, with Google coming up with a free turn-by-turn navigation app... what will happen with the ones we have to pay for?
Haven't tried it with Navigon, but I have tried it with Google Maps, MotionX GPS lite, and G-Map east, and they all work fine (i.e., using the TomTom mount's gps, not the iphone's internal one), so I can't think of a reason why Navigon wouldn't work.
PlipPlop
Apr 26, 03:11 PM
Well done Android, long may you reign over the smartphones.
tablo13
Apr 25, 09:59 AM
Turn off location services, encrypt backup, or turn off phone. Problem solved? The backup contains more private things anyways. But the media has scared people again, the same people who complain about facebook's privacy while they post all their info on Facebook for everyone to see.
bhtooefr
Apr 30, 10:56 PM
OK, so a few things about this that I'm seeing...
3200x2000 background: A bit odd choice of resolution, but I think they're making a 16:10 resolution that they'll crop to 16:9 for the machine with an actually 3200px wide display.
But, that does indicate a few things.
3200x1800 makes sense if you're pixel quadrupling a 1600x900 display, which is what a 15.6" 16:9 MBP at current pixel densities would be. But, it DOESN'T make sense for pixel quadrupling the 17" MBP, or any of the desktop displays.
If the 15.6" or 15.4" MBP gets this, and the 17" doesn't... that means that (and this is pure conjecture here) the 17" isn't long for the world. How well do they sell, anyway?
As for display technology supporting a pixel-quadrupled iMac, we've had the technology for a pixel-quadrupled 21.5" iMac since 2001. The IBM T221, a 3840x2400 22.2" monitor, is the same density as that theoretical display. It was $18,000 when it came out, and by the time IBM pulled the plug on IDTech, a Viewsonic-branded version of the T221, the VP2290b, was in the $4000 ballpark in 2005. So, had the T221 followed a curve influenced more by technology improvements than by the market getting saturated with unusable monitors, we'd be seeing these panels in the $2000 range nowadays, as a standalone monitor, I think.
Now, to look at all the machines that Apple has. Keep in mind that I think that only pro hardware will get this, and Apple likes to stick to around 100-110 PPI for desktops, and 110-130 PPI for laptops.
I'll go ahead and speculate on theoretical 16:9 variants of existing models, too.
MacBook Air 11.6": Currently 1366x768, 135 ppi, retina at 25.4" - would be 2732x1536, 270 ppi, retina at 12.7"
MacBook Air 13.3": Currently 1440x900, 128 ppi, retina at 26.9" - would be 2880x1800, 255 ppi, retina at 13.5"
MacBook and MacBook Pro 13.3": Currently 1280x800, 113 ppi, retina at 30.3" - would be 2560x1600, 227 ppi, retina at 15.1"
MacBook Pro 15.4" low-res: Currently 1440x900, 110 ppi, retina at 31.2" - would be 2880x1800, 221 ppi, retina at 15.6"
MacBook Pro 15.4" high-res: Currently 1680x1050, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3360x2100, 257 ppi, retina at 13.4"
MacBook Pro 17.0": Currently 1920x1200, 133 ppi, retina at 25.8" - would be 3840x2400, 266 ppi, retina at 12.9"
iMac 21.5": Currently 1920x1080, 102 ppi, retina at 33.6" - would be 3840x2160, 205 ppi, retina at 16.8"
iMac/Cinema Display 27": Currently 2560x1440, 109 ppi, retina at 31.6" - would be 5120x2880, 218 ppi, retina at 15.8"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 low-res: 1366x768, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 2732x1536, 236 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 high-res: 1600x900, 138 ppi, retina at 24.9" - would be 3200x1800, 276 ppi, retina at 12.4"
Theoretical 15.6" 16:9: 1600x900, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 3200x1800, 235 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 17.1" 16:9: 1920x1080, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3840x2160, 258 ppi, retina at 13.3"
Hrm. I am noticing a problem here for getting consistent resolutions when getting 16:9 into the mix... and, interestingly, Apple stayed on 16:10 for the 13.3" MBA. So, I wonder if this could even be a red herring of some kind? Because 3200x2000 doesn't really match up with any expected 16:10 resolution...
(Current lineup can do 255-270 ppi, which is fairly tight, ignoring the 13.3" MB(P) and the low-res 15.4" MBP, but going to 16:9, either desktop area would shrink for many users (and even then, the 11.6" and 17.1" wouldn't fit in well), or there would be a wide variance in ppi.)
Another thing to consider is the $3.9 billion that Apple pumped into LCD makers... possibly to secure a supply of retina panels?
(In case you can't tell, I'm SERIOUS about my high ppi displays. Looking at a IDTech IAQX10N, a 2048x1536 15.0" 171 ppi IPS display right now, and I'm stuck on a 5 year old machine because of it. Whoever makes something roughly equivalent or better gets my business, unless they're Sony.)
3200x2000 background: A bit odd choice of resolution, but I think they're making a 16:10 resolution that they'll crop to 16:9 for the machine with an actually 3200px wide display.
But, that does indicate a few things.
3200x1800 makes sense if you're pixel quadrupling a 1600x900 display, which is what a 15.6" 16:9 MBP at current pixel densities would be. But, it DOESN'T make sense for pixel quadrupling the 17" MBP, or any of the desktop displays.
If the 15.6" or 15.4" MBP gets this, and the 17" doesn't... that means that (and this is pure conjecture here) the 17" isn't long for the world. How well do they sell, anyway?
As for display technology supporting a pixel-quadrupled iMac, we've had the technology for a pixel-quadrupled 21.5" iMac since 2001. The IBM T221, a 3840x2400 22.2" monitor, is the same density as that theoretical display. It was $18,000 when it came out, and by the time IBM pulled the plug on IDTech, a Viewsonic-branded version of the T221, the VP2290b, was in the $4000 ballpark in 2005. So, had the T221 followed a curve influenced more by technology improvements than by the market getting saturated with unusable monitors, we'd be seeing these panels in the $2000 range nowadays, as a standalone monitor, I think.
Now, to look at all the machines that Apple has. Keep in mind that I think that only pro hardware will get this, and Apple likes to stick to around 100-110 PPI for desktops, and 110-130 PPI for laptops.
I'll go ahead and speculate on theoretical 16:9 variants of existing models, too.
MacBook Air 11.6": Currently 1366x768, 135 ppi, retina at 25.4" - would be 2732x1536, 270 ppi, retina at 12.7"
MacBook Air 13.3": Currently 1440x900, 128 ppi, retina at 26.9" - would be 2880x1800, 255 ppi, retina at 13.5"
MacBook and MacBook Pro 13.3": Currently 1280x800, 113 ppi, retina at 30.3" - would be 2560x1600, 227 ppi, retina at 15.1"
MacBook Pro 15.4" low-res: Currently 1440x900, 110 ppi, retina at 31.2" - would be 2880x1800, 221 ppi, retina at 15.6"
MacBook Pro 15.4" high-res: Currently 1680x1050, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3360x2100, 257 ppi, retina at 13.4"
MacBook Pro 17.0": Currently 1920x1200, 133 ppi, retina at 25.8" - would be 3840x2400, 266 ppi, retina at 12.9"
iMac 21.5": Currently 1920x1080, 102 ppi, retina at 33.6" - would be 3840x2160, 205 ppi, retina at 16.8"
iMac/Cinema Display 27": Currently 2560x1440, 109 ppi, retina at 31.6" - would be 5120x2880, 218 ppi, retina at 15.8"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 low-res: 1366x768, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 2732x1536, 236 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 high-res: 1600x900, 138 ppi, retina at 24.9" - would be 3200x1800, 276 ppi, retina at 12.4"
Theoretical 15.6" 16:9: 1600x900, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 3200x1800, 235 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 17.1" 16:9: 1920x1080, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3840x2160, 258 ppi, retina at 13.3"
Hrm. I am noticing a problem here for getting consistent resolutions when getting 16:9 into the mix... and, interestingly, Apple stayed on 16:10 for the 13.3" MBA. So, I wonder if this could even be a red herring of some kind? Because 3200x2000 doesn't really match up with any expected 16:10 resolution...
(Current lineup can do 255-270 ppi, which is fairly tight, ignoring the 13.3" MB(P) and the low-res 15.4" MBP, but going to 16:9, either desktop area would shrink for many users (and even then, the 11.6" and 17.1" wouldn't fit in well), or there would be a wide variance in ppi.)
Another thing to consider is the $3.9 billion that Apple pumped into LCD makers... possibly to secure a supply of retina panels?
(In case you can't tell, I'm SERIOUS about my high ppi displays. Looking at a IDTech IAQX10N, a 2048x1536 15.0" 171 ppi IPS display right now, and I'm stuck on a 5 year old machine because of it. Whoever makes something roughly equivalent or better gets my business, unless they're Sony.)
zimtheinvader
Sep 15, 10:01 PM
I think no new enclosure, they would have done that when they went Intel! I also second the antiMB keyboard sentiment. The powerbook keyboard is nearly perfect, & one of the the major selling points for MBP over MB for journalists, scientists, intensive-keyboardists, ect, only minor improvements could me made unless there is some new technology integrated...
MonkeySee....
Mar 28, 10:08 AM
So your attitude is "if I can't have it, I don't want anyone to have it."?
Whether it comes out or not, you won't be getting one. So why would it matter either way?
Maybe because, like me, it would be nice to actually have a product on its release date? :rolleyes:
Whether it comes out or not, you won't be getting one. So why would it matter either way?
Maybe because, like me, it would be nice to actually have a product on its release date? :rolleyes:
leman
May 6, 02:15 AM
Your app is prolly simple enough that you could do that. Consider more complex apps such as games and video-editing that require extensive use of the x86 architecture. That's the real problem.
People who still use assembly in their software are just sad. There is absolutely NO reason to use CPU-specific stuff, not anymore, as we have OpenCL and similar tech for performance-critical parallel computations.
The only field where hand-coded assembly makes sense are interpreters.
And in all seriousness, that is the real issue. Switching from x86 to ARM RISC is a really big problem because the benefit of x86 is that so much work has been done on it, porting Windows apps and/or games is simply a software coding issue as opposed to hardware. Even if ARM had comparable processes to x86 to compensate to some degree, that's still another series of steps to go through.
And this is precisely the reason why the inefficient and outdated architecture like x86 is still alive. If Apple has the courage to make the first step towards a better tech: I will applaud them.
Or even better, just build x86 chips in-house like they do with the A series.
You are joking, right? x86 CPU is a completely different pair of shoes from the ARM CPUs. Later can be designed easily. First ones are absolute monsters in terms of complexity. Intel has decades of design experience which all live in their current CPU line. Destroy all the information about Sandy Bridge designs from Intel servers, and it will take them at least 5 years to reconstruct it.
People who still use assembly in their software are just sad. There is absolutely NO reason to use CPU-specific stuff, not anymore, as we have OpenCL and similar tech for performance-critical parallel computations.
The only field where hand-coded assembly makes sense are interpreters.
And in all seriousness, that is the real issue. Switching from x86 to ARM RISC is a really big problem because the benefit of x86 is that so much work has been done on it, porting Windows apps and/or games is simply a software coding issue as opposed to hardware. Even if ARM had comparable processes to x86 to compensate to some degree, that's still another series of steps to go through.
And this is precisely the reason why the inefficient and outdated architecture like x86 is still alive. If Apple has the courage to make the first step towards a better tech: I will applaud them.
Or even better, just build x86 chips in-house like they do with the A series.
You are joking, right? x86 CPU is a completely different pair of shoes from the ARM CPUs. Later can be designed easily. First ones are absolute monsters in terms of complexity. Intel has decades of design experience which all live in their current CPU line. Destroy all the information about Sandy Bridge designs from Intel servers, and it will take them at least 5 years to reconstruct it.
0010101
Nov 27, 12:28 AM
NEWS:
November 23, 2006 CNN
NEW YORK (AP) -- Cell phone owners will be allowed to break software locks on their handsets in order to use them with competing carriers under new copyright rules announced Wednesday.
Given the above news, NO cellphone company may soon be subsidizing ANY phones.
Sure they will. They give you the phone at a discounted rate, or free, if you sign a service contract for X number of years.. which is how they get their money back.
The new rules are intended for people who buy the phones at full price, or decide to move to a competing carrier after they have fulfilled their obligations under their service contract/agreement.
The people this might sting would be outfits like Virgin Mobile, TracPhone, and other 'pre-paid' wireless companies, who often sell their phones at or below cost because they'll make up the money in sold airtime.
They hook you with the low price and no contract or monthly fee, but then sock you with .25 cents a minute or more airtime charges.
November 23, 2006 CNN
NEW YORK (AP) -- Cell phone owners will be allowed to break software locks on their handsets in order to use them with competing carriers under new copyright rules announced Wednesday.
Given the above news, NO cellphone company may soon be subsidizing ANY phones.
Sure they will. They give you the phone at a discounted rate, or free, if you sign a service contract for X number of years.. which is how they get their money back.
The new rules are intended for people who buy the phones at full price, or decide to move to a competing carrier after they have fulfilled their obligations under their service contract/agreement.
The people this might sting would be outfits like Virgin Mobile, TracPhone, and other 'pre-paid' wireless companies, who often sell their phones at or below cost because they'll make up the money in sold airtime.
They hook you with the low price and no contract or monthly fee, but then sock you with .25 cents a minute or more airtime charges.
pizzafunghi
May 7, 03:45 PM
Then they better improve the performance first. If they offered it free then more users would really bog down the current MobileMe
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDXSSi1qStA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDXSSi1qStA
johnmcboston
Mar 28, 09:47 AM
Maybe not at WWDC, but I don't see them waiting till Fall to put out new iPhone hardware, hold iOS5 till then, maybe, but not new hardware.
They risk losing people to Android, WebOS, etc... as the remaining iPhone3GS people all start coming off of contract, and nobody will go iPhone4 knowing 5 is just months away.
This waiting around also gives 3GS users a few months to check out other products (new Pre w/WebOS, etc). Apple does not want people looking around during that break time.
I'm in that boat. although I'm most likely not willing to 'jump ship'. :) would just be disappointed at a few more months of an 'old phone'.
They risk losing people to Android, WebOS, etc... as the remaining iPhone3GS people all start coming off of contract, and nobody will go iPhone4 knowing 5 is just months away.
This waiting around also gives 3GS users a few months to check out other products (new Pre w/WebOS, etc). Apple does not want people looking around during that break time.
I'm in that boat. although I'm most likely not willing to 'jump ship'. :) would just be disappointed at a few more months of an 'old phone'.
applefanDrew
Mar 27, 01:05 AM
I'm starting to wonder if a Iphone 5 is even going to come out this year i mean with the Verizon IPhone launched in February "kinda close to June - July IMO" so they might wait tell june of next year where we get AT&T and a Verizon IPhone upgrades.
just my thoughts on it. of course Apple is a secret company so we won't know tell it happens:)
There will be a new iPhone during calendar 2011
just my thoughts on it. of course Apple is a secret company so we won't know tell it happens:)
There will be a new iPhone during calendar 2011
fishmoose
Apr 18, 05:03 PM
Samsung has been copying Apple for years, serves them right they got served. With that said Apple probably won't win the lawsuit.
skate71290
Mar 30, 06:17 PM
what's this redeem code? i have applied the minor update via Software Update, but nothing happened?
york2600
Apr 26, 02:07 PM
I really hope that Apple sees trends like this and realizes it's time to change their game plan. No more once a year phones. Time to kick the innovation level up a few notches. Time for over the air OS updates, over the air app installs, wireless syncing and everything else Android has offered for some time now.
ergle2
Sep 15, 11:09 PM
If you really want longer battery life, then you should be hoping to keep the X1600. It's regarded as having the best "performance per watt" of recent mobile GPUs.
I'd rather have a bigger battery and a Go 7700. I've not seen any decent figures for power draw on the mobile chips. The 7700 is manufactured on an 80nm process tho', so that should help some.
Personally, I hope (well, pipe dream actually) they'll make MBP build-to-order like Mac Pro. I'd downgrade the CPU to the 2.0GHz version. It wholesales for $130 less than the 2.16, and $340 less than the 2.33. That's way too much to pay for a fractional speed increase.
OTOH, the 2.0 Xeon is $370 less than the 2.66 and Apple only cuts the price $75 for two of them. That's robbery. So I guess MBP BTO probably wouldn't help me even if they did it.
Bear in mind custom options effectively "cost" Apple a lot more due to requiring special attention in a way the rest of the line doesn't. More so with the laptop line due to the processor being socketted rather than soldered.
Personally, I think the 2.33GHz part price is insane considering the small speed-bump, but that's up to Apple.
I'd rather have a bigger battery and a Go 7700. I've not seen any decent figures for power draw on the mobile chips. The 7700 is manufactured on an 80nm process tho', so that should help some.
Personally, I hope (well, pipe dream actually) they'll make MBP build-to-order like Mac Pro. I'd downgrade the CPU to the 2.0GHz version. It wholesales for $130 less than the 2.16, and $340 less than the 2.33. That's way too much to pay for a fractional speed increase.
OTOH, the 2.0 Xeon is $370 less than the 2.66 and Apple only cuts the price $75 for two of them. That's robbery. So I guess MBP BTO probably wouldn't help me even if they did it.
Bear in mind custom options effectively "cost" Apple a lot more due to requiring special attention in a way the rest of the line doesn't. More so with the laptop line due to the processor being socketted rather than soldered.
Personally, I think the 2.33GHz part price is insane considering the small speed-bump, but that's up to Apple.
Mjmar
Mar 26, 10:00 PM
Fall iPhone 5?
Nuks
Aug 12, 05:50 PM
Why not?
If they come out on the 12th, and the promotion ends on the 16th (in Canada), then they should qualify..
If they come out on the 12th, and the promotion ends on the 16th (in Canada), then they should qualify..
progx
Mar 30, 06:16 AM
Hmm. This seems like a pass for me. I'll wait for Apple's offerings through MobileMe this year because I'll have the iPhone 4 or 5 on Verizon by the end of the year.
Then I can punt my piece of s*** Droid X to the curb. No more battery pulls and video that'll play NATIVELY ON THE DEVICE THAT RECORDED IT! Yes, the Droid X can't play it's own video back. Motorola's Droids Don't Do JACK.
Amazon's new service will be good, but just like its video streaming options, just a little too expensive. I'm sure it will be a great service for the Droids and the price will eventually go down. Maybe they should look into a data farm.
Then I can punt my piece of s*** Droid X to the curb. No more battery pulls and video that'll play NATIVELY ON THE DEVICE THAT RECORDED IT! Yes, the Droid X can't play it's own video back. Motorola's Droids Don't Do JACK.
Amazon's new service will be good, but just like its video streaming options, just a little too expensive. I'm sure it will be a great service for the Droids and the price will eventually go down. Maybe they should look into a data farm.
Indiana82
Sep 11, 08:07 AM
Jeez, why do people think Apple will make the movie store/movie management part of iTunes?
I agree. That makes no sense. Videos are no music. The moviestore will feature an own app, like "iTheatre" or something like that in an animated cinema style.
I think it's even simpler to make a new app, than to implement all necessary Stuff into iTunes 7.
I agree. That makes no sense. Videos are no music. The moviestore will feature an own app, like "iTheatre" or something like that in an animated cinema style.
I think it's even simpler to make a new app, than to implement all necessary Stuff into iTunes 7.
Multimedia
Sep 11, 12:56 PM
Whats the Paris expo, Never heard of that before, are you sure it exists? :confused: :confused: :confused:
Paris Apple Expo is headl every September in Paris France (http://www.apple-expo.com/uk/). It is the largest European Apple Exposition like the January San Francisco MacWorld Expo is the largest in America.
Paris Apple Expo is headl every September in Paris France (http://www.apple-expo.com/uk/). It is the largest European Apple Exposition like the January San Francisco MacWorld Expo is the largest in America.
exscape
Apr 25, 09:36 AM
this is a non-story sad steve jobs has to even reply to these stupid allegations
"Allegations"?
People claim the iPhone saves cell location data on the phone, and also saves this file during iTunes backups. This is TRUE, and can be verified by reading your OWN iPhone database, which shows where YOUR phone has been. That would be impossible if it didn't save that data.
SOME people (not most!) also claim that the data is sent to Apple, rather than just kept on the device. THIS, however, is unproven and may well be false.
As it stands, though, I don't see how "The info circulating around is false." is not a lie. It's very easy to verify that "the info" that this data is indeed saved is true.
"Allegations"?
People claim the iPhone saves cell location data on the phone, and also saves this file during iTunes backups. This is TRUE, and can be verified by reading your OWN iPhone database, which shows where YOUR phone has been. That would be impossible if it didn't save that data.
SOME people (not most!) also claim that the data is sent to Apple, rather than just kept on the device. THIS, however, is unproven and may well be false.
As it stands, though, I don't see how "The info circulating around is false." is not a lie. It's very easy to verify that "the info" that this data is indeed saved is true.