SuperCachetes
May 5, 05:26 AM
Can you cite reliable figures for the cost advantage versus the cost to switch?
Sorry it took so long to respond to this; I assure you it took only a second to Google (this is just the first result I found):
http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/pays-off.html
Sorry it took so long to respond to this; I assure you it took only a second to Google (this is just the first result I found):
http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/pays-off.html
Hastings101
Apr 8, 02:36 AM
no, but I sometimes think that Andy Rubin believes he's the next Jobs ... at least he dresses similar to Jobs:
He kind of looks like him, lose a little more hair, the glasses, change his face a little...
He kind of looks like him, lose a little more hair, the glasses, change his face a little...
iGary
Sep 11, 08:02 AM
I told Rob about the event yesterday...
"Great, all we need is another iPod." :rolleyes:
"Great, all we need is another iPod." :rolleyes:
Riemann Zeta
Mar 27, 11:40 AM
Yay let us all surrender our privacy to the cloud... Sometimes I feel like the only one that understands the long term implications cloud based computer has when we allow our content and log files on others' servers. Thankfully I know I'm not the only one though.
Nope, not the only one. Boo to the cloud and everything related to it. I'd rather not have all of my data on a massive public server, available to Apple, advertisers and any government agency at all times. Those claiming that "it's encrypted" are not fully appreciating the security implications of not having control over the implementation of said encryption. For example, SSL/HTTPS is "encrypted" as well, but since Certificate Authorities give signed master-key certificates to all government intelligence and law enforcement agencies, it isn't technically 100% secure (despite mathematically unbreakable encryption).
Taking off the tin-foil hat and simply thinking about economics: I still don't understand how cloud computing is actually going to become a dominant market force. There are now only 3 wireless providers in the US, forming a tight oligopoly, and all of them are incredibly stingy with data caps and limitations. Moreover, there are only a handful of unique internet providers in the US and all are cutting client bandwidth, raising prices and instituting throttling or monthly data caps. So it would seem that big software companies like Apple, Microsoft and Google are pushing the idea of streaming everything; but internet providers only want to supply bandwidth for their own cable TV services. Something just doesn't add up. How is one supposed to have no local storage and just stream music and video when their wireless connection only allows for 2GB/month and their home ISP throttles everything other than its own cable TV service?
Nope, not the only one. Boo to the cloud and everything related to it. I'd rather not have all of my data on a massive public server, available to Apple, advertisers and any government agency at all times. Those claiming that "it's encrypted" are not fully appreciating the security implications of not having control over the implementation of said encryption. For example, SSL/HTTPS is "encrypted" as well, but since Certificate Authorities give signed master-key certificates to all government intelligence and law enforcement agencies, it isn't technically 100% secure (despite mathematically unbreakable encryption).
Taking off the tin-foil hat and simply thinking about economics: I still don't understand how cloud computing is actually going to become a dominant market force. There are now only 3 wireless providers in the US, forming a tight oligopoly, and all of them are incredibly stingy with data caps and limitations. Moreover, there are only a handful of unique internet providers in the US and all are cutting client bandwidth, raising prices and instituting throttling or monthly data caps. So it would seem that big software companies like Apple, Microsoft and Google are pushing the idea of streaming everything; but internet providers only want to supply bandwidth for their own cable TV services. Something just doesn't add up. How is one supposed to have no local storage and just stream music and video when their wireless connection only allows for 2GB/month and their home ISP throttles everything other than its own cable TV service?
BLUELION
Apr 5, 01:52 PM
In theory, support your view. However, apple is only protecting their intellectual property and business model. You would do the same if you here at the wheel.
Leave the jailbreak community alone Apple!! What is your ****ing problem??? Can't we just coexist???:mad:
Leave the jailbreak community alone Apple!! What is your ****ing problem??? Can't we just coexist???:mad:
heisetax
Aug 2, 02:59 PM
Then, unless it is a pharmaceutical, national security, or some other VII, the company needs to get with the times. So called intellectual property is so last century and quite honestly patents are pretty useless in these fast changing times.
My take is that Steve will spend much time on numbers (how many units sold, how well the Intel switch is going) and then introduce the Pro Line. Expect a bit on Leopard and probably a jab at Vista. Although, that might not happen if Steve has what's-her-name out again to introduce the Universal Office. I would not be suprised if Steve has someone from Adobe out to introduce a Universal suite... for sometime in the future.
Wouldn't it be something if Apple came out with a new piece of hardware. Maybe there will be a new strategic alliance introduced.
I thought that MS said they they would have separate versions of Office for the PPC & Intel Macs. That's what I expect from them when you look bak at Office X, which was really only a side grade from OS 9 to OS 10 support. So no Universal Office, just a PPC Office & an Intel Office. Then in a year when Steve Jobs declares the PPC Mac a dead item, the PPC version will be gone.
I'd rather see an UB version as then if I do get an Intel Mac I could move the software over. But then MS couldn't sell me a new copy. Maybe a special price of $10 or so off if you purchase both versions together.
Bill the TaxMan
My take is that Steve will spend much time on numbers (how many units sold, how well the Intel switch is going) and then introduce the Pro Line. Expect a bit on Leopard and probably a jab at Vista. Although, that might not happen if Steve has what's-her-name out again to introduce the Universal Office. I would not be suprised if Steve has someone from Adobe out to introduce a Universal suite... for sometime in the future.
Wouldn't it be something if Apple came out with a new piece of hardware. Maybe there will be a new strategic alliance introduced.
I thought that MS said they they would have separate versions of Office for the PPC & Intel Macs. That's what I expect from them when you look bak at Office X, which was really only a side grade from OS 9 to OS 10 support. So no Universal Office, just a PPC Office & an Intel Office. Then in a year when Steve Jobs declares the PPC Mac a dead item, the PPC version will be gone.
I'd rather see an UB version as then if I do get an Intel Mac I could move the software over. But then MS couldn't sell me a new copy. Maybe a special price of $10 or so off if you purchase both versions together.
Bill the TaxMan
nverner
Apr 20, 08:08 AM
Just what I thought, not a big update I think iOS 5 will be the big update and not the hardware as such :)
ChickenSwartz
Sep 16, 11:35 AM
Thats some optimistic reading mister. Not VERY reliable, just reliable. And the report is not connected to the newest rumor, it's something they heard about earlier this year and they're unable to confirm that it applies to the 25th. Oh well, maybe you read another article than me?
You are right, they have no evidence to point to the event on the 25th. The 12in was reported by them in MARCH say "we may expect this new Mac Book Pro to arrive late in the second quarter of this year." That hasn't happened. I think they have already f-ed up this lead and are re-reporting it with the slim hope that it will happen.
You are right, they have no evidence to point to the event on the 25th. The 12in was reported by them in MARCH say "we may expect this new Mac Book Pro to arrive late in the second quarter of this year." That hasn't happened. I think they have already f-ed up this lead and are re-reporting it with the slim hope that it will happen.
ten-oak-druid
Apr 18, 03:19 PM
If Apple cannot beat them....they sue them. Way to go Apple, you are devoid of morals and innovation.
When can we officially say that Apple is now the New Microsoft?
Not at all. But nice try.
When can we officially say that Apple is now the New Microsoft?
Not at all. But nice try.
Ryth
Apr 22, 12:50 PM
Not if you care about colo[u]r management. While Apple continues its love affair with shiny screens, creatives need an alternative.
Considering the market is moving towards digital distribution on these shiny screens, color management is going by the wayside, especially with a lack of standards now in HD/cable TV.
Also, it's called having a second calibrated monitor for TV like all good post houses should have.
Been doing creative for 15+ years. Apple's shiny screens over the last years haven't caused us to miss a beat.
Considering the market is moving towards digital distribution on these shiny screens, color management is going by the wayside, especially with a lack of standards now in HD/cable TV.
Also, it's called having a second calibrated monitor for TV like all good post houses should have.
Been doing creative for 15+ years. Apple's shiny screens over the last years haven't caused us to miss a beat.
quinney
Apr 5, 02:37 PM
So uh what exactly would Toyota lose if they tell Apple to stick it? At best all I can guess are licenses to use use an iPod trademark or something similar to integrate into the car stereo, if they even have that option. I can't think of anything else.
Hundreds of millions of iPods have been sold, and people want to be able to control them through their cars' audio systems. Toyota knows the importance of this by the number of people who go into their showrooms and ask if their cars have this feature. I think it is really quite important and may be a deciding feature for people who are comparing cars of different brands, which are otherwise quite similar. Toyota is making a good business decision.
Hundreds of millions of iPods have been sold, and people want to be able to control them through their cars' audio systems. Toyota knows the importance of this by the number of people who go into their showrooms and ask if their cars have this feature. I think it is really quite important and may be a deciding feature for people who are comparing cars of different brands, which are otherwise quite similar. Toyota is making a good business decision.
The ORly owl
Apr 23, 05:37 PM
I will assume the role of the buzzkiller here and assume that this is in prevision of the fact that Lion's Spaces lets you have a different section of the same wallpaper for each space.
Ori
Apr 18, 04:32 PM
Looking at the TouchWiz UI, I see your point.
But, at what point does an interface become too generic? For example, the concept of pages of icons in a grid isn't really new or innovative. The concept of swiping across screens is simple and intuitive and should be standardized
(e.g. copied) for that exact reason. Should other phone makers put the icons in a circle, "just because" they need to be different? Should they force you to do something differently just because the best and most intuitive way was "already taken"?
Everyone loves car analogies, so: what if Ford decided to sue other carmakers because they copied their steering wheel design? Would other companies have been forced to adopt other types of controls -- joysticks or dials or foot pedals, perhaps -- "just because"? And would that have been good for the auto industry?
The car industry isn't a good one to look at actually. A new top end S Class merc has hundreds of new patents with every modem revamp it does. Car companies constantly pay royalties to each other to use tech. Especially safety tech.
But, at what point does an interface become too generic? For example, the concept of pages of icons in a grid isn't really new or innovative. The concept of swiping across screens is simple and intuitive and should be standardized
(e.g. copied) for that exact reason. Should other phone makers put the icons in a circle, "just because" they need to be different? Should they force you to do something differently just because the best and most intuitive way was "already taken"?
Everyone loves car analogies, so: what if Ford decided to sue other carmakers because they copied their steering wheel design? Would other companies have been forced to adopt other types of controls -- joysticks or dials or foot pedals, perhaps -- "just because"? And would that have been good for the auto industry?
The car industry isn't a good one to look at actually. A new top end S Class merc has hundreds of new patents with every modem revamp it does. Car companies constantly pay royalties to each other to use tech. Especially safety tech.
Clive At Five
Nov 22, 12:53 PM
I'll agree as well. One feature that Apple might be able to captalize on, if they do sell direct to consumers rather than through carriers, would be resolution of the bells/whistles problem.
For some people, a phone isn't a phone unless is has a 3MP camera, takes 640x480 video, etc. For others, all they want is basic PDA functionality. Would it be possible for Apple to offer a BTO option? I mean, Camera/Video is generally listed under a single menu option, and it wouldn't be that difficult to design the firmware to only display the category if the Camera is installed. To make things easier, Apple could stock one or two basic models in their stores, and leave people to go to apple.com for customizations...Any reason why this couldn't work?
Other than confusing everyone with too many options, no.
If you're a teenage girl, your phone has to have a camera on it, meaning you'll have to go to Apple.com to custom-order it. That's complicated.
If you're a hiker, maybe you're going to want a phone with GPS, meaning you'll have to go to Apple.com to custom-order it. That's complicated.
If you're a huge multitasker, you're going to want PDA-functionality, meaning you'll have to go to Apple.com to custom-order it. That's complicated.
Very few people, I feel, will want a bare-bones phone... meaning most will have to go to Apple.com to custom-order it. That's too complicated for most people to do.
So in short, no, I don't think that'll work. Good idea, though. That way you'd get a phone with the features you want without the crap that you don't want. Unfortunately, as far as a particular model of phone goes, it's either all or nothing... and I don't think Apple will want to release 18 different models of phone, each with different capabilities... that's worse than BTO.
-Clive
For some people, a phone isn't a phone unless is has a 3MP camera, takes 640x480 video, etc. For others, all they want is basic PDA functionality. Would it be possible for Apple to offer a BTO option? I mean, Camera/Video is generally listed under a single menu option, and it wouldn't be that difficult to design the firmware to only display the category if the Camera is installed. To make things easier, Apple could stock one or two basic models in their stores, and leave people to go to apple.com for customizations...Any reason why this couldn't work?
Other than confusing everyone with too many options, no.
If you're a teenage girl, your phone has to have a camera on it, meaning you'll have to go to Apple.com to custom-order it. That's complicated.
If you're a hiker, maybe you're going to want a phone with GPS, meaning you'll have to go to Apple.com to custom-order it. That's complicated.
If you're a huge multitasker, you're going to want PDA-functionality, meaning you'll have to go to Apple.com to custom-order it. That's complicated.
Very few people, I feel, will want a bare-bones phone... meaning most will have to go to Apple.com to custom-order it. That's too complicated for most people to do.
So in short, no, I don't think that'll work. Good idea, though. That way you'd get a phone with the features you want without the crap that you don't want. Unfortunately, as far as a particular model of phone goes, it's either all or nothing... and I don't think Apple will want to release 18 different models of phone, each with different capabilities... that's worse than BTO.
-Clive
MacLawyer
May 4, 03:10 PM
I'm guessing DVDs or USB keys will be around for awhile for the big things like a major OS upgrade, Office, Creative Suite.
wordoflife
Apr 9, 05:19 PM
I did parenthesis, then multiplication or division from left to right. That's how I was taught it.
I'm pretty sure doing PEMDAS left to right is the proper way to do it
48/2(9+3)
48/2(12)
24(12)
288
I'm pretty sure doing PEMDAS left to right is the proper way to do it
48/2(9+3)
48/2(12)
24(12)
288
tstreete
Nov 14, 08:23 AM
The key for making this purchase for me is to have at least the option to allow the calls to come in through the car's speakers while using the built-in mic on the dock.
Can't be done. When plugged into the aux port, navigation instructions and music comes through the car speakers. Only phone calls come through the dock speakers.
The only way I know of to reliably route phone calls through a car's stereo system (without some kind of professional add-on) is this: get one of those little adapters designed to allow you to use regular stereo headphones with an iphone; run the adapter from the iphone's earphone jack into your car speakers, and then position the mic on the adapter for calls. Works OK, but can generate feedback during calls for the person you're talking to. And it means you're plugging in both at the bottom and the top of the iphone everytime you set it up in the car. TomTom seems to have gone for one-handed installation of the iPhone, which meant they had to use bluetooth for calls, because calls can't be routed through the dock port.
Can't be done. When plugged into the aux port, navigation instructions and music comes through the car speakers. Only phone calls come through the dock speakers.
The only way I know of to reliably route phone calls through a car's stereo system (without some kind of professional add-on) is this: get one of those little adapters designed to allow you to use regular stereo headphones with an iphone; run the adapter from the iphone's earphone jack into your car speakers, and then position the mic on the adapter for calls. Works OK, but can generate feedback during calls for the person you're talking to. And it means you're plugging in both at the bottom and the top of the iphone everytime you set it up in the car. TomTom seems to have gone for one-handed installation of the iPhone, which meant they had to use bluetooth for calls, because calls can't be routed through the dock port.
gadget123
Apr 20, 02:03 PM
They don't have to do squat really. They can just call it the iPhone 5 and people would still buy it if it only had a slightly better camera in it.
Well exactly the 3G > 3GS update was minor so the 4/5 will be too.
Anybody expecting a total redesign in Iphone 5 may feel let down. Many people prefer the Iphone 4 design and I'd rather not see them go back to the older design.
Well exactly the 3G > 3GS update was minor so the 4/5 will be too.
Anybody expecting a total redesign in Iphone 5 may feel let down. Many people prefer the Iphone 4 design and I'd rather not see them go back to the older design.
ericinboston
Mar 28, 10:58 AM
Not cool. Coming from an iPhone 3GS, I seriously don't want to wait.
Same here...I don't need it Day 1 but I don't want to wait till 2012 when my contract expires in Sept...I can go month-to-month but was really looking forward to a phone with more storage and better video/camera. By Sept/Oct there will be a lot of Androids to try...ditto for 2012.
I also want to see sometime this year a new iPod Classic and maybe a new Mini. iMac would be nice but they are still too pricey for my blood since 90% of the stuff I/we use our computers for are web-driven tasks (email, bills, web surfing, photo sharing, family blogs/website, etc).
Same here...I don't need it Day 1 but I don't want to wait till 2012 when my contract expires in Sept...I can go month-to-month but was really looking forward to a phone with more storage and better video/camera. By Sept/Oct there will be a lot of Androids to try...ditto for 2012.
I also want to see sometime this year a new iPod Classic and maybe a new Mini. iMac would be nice but they are still too pricey for my blood since 90% of the stuff I/we use our computers for are web-driven tasks (email, bills, web surfing, photo sharing, family blogs/website, etc).
dj2mc
Nov 26, 01:12 PM
To lay down some feedback of my own, I have used Sophos for a while and I am very pleased with it. I had Clam XAV for the longest time, and to be honest I never felt very safe w/ it because it never had the image of it was even scanning legibly, sometimes it would pop up with scan errors, corrupt updates, etc. The list goes on... Sophos is a prime example of an AV that has characteristics that others are missing. It's stable, fast, reliable and ultimately gives you the best protection because it's always scanning, and always searching the file you open each time. What more can you want?
So, I tip my hat off to Sophos
So, I tip my hat off to Sophos
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.
hawken1
Jul 29, 09:54 PM
http://www.devilducky.com/media/46492/
I haven't seen this before but I guess it's old news?
Looks pretty cool anyway..
I haven't seen this before but I guess it's old news?
Looks pretty cool anyway..
nuckinfutz
May 7, 11:04 AM
Google, Dropbox, Teamviewer. Good enough for me and free.
Eric Schmidt on privacy (http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/48975)
"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."
What Eric like posting my pics of my son up on a page yet not wanting the freakin' world to see? Or how about my list of friends exposed to the world with the automatic opt in of Google Buzz (http://www.businessinsider.com/warning-google-buzz-has-a-huge-privacy-flaw-2010-2)
Google and Facebook are nothing but data mining scavengers. Try this...if the shat hits the fan on either site tell me how quickly you can call and talk to a human? I'll wait.
Eric Schmidt on privacy (http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/48975)
"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."
What Eric like posting my pics of my son up on a page yet not wanting the freakin' world to see? Or how about my list of friends exposed to the world with the automatic opt in of Google Buzz (http://www.businessinsider.com/warning-google-buzz-has-a-huge-privacy-flaw-2010-2)
Google and Facebook are nothing but data mining scavengers. Try this...if the shat hits the fan on either site tell me how quickly you can call and talk to a human? I'll wait.
LaMerVipere
Aug 7, 02:56 PM
LAME
� $2,499 standard price of Mac Pro ($2,299 for Education)
��$2,124 is the lowest you can configure the Mac Pro ($1,962 for Education)
���To get it that low, you have to drop the processors from 2.66GHz to 2GHz and and the hard drive from 250GB to 160GB
� Airport Extreme & Bluetooth 2.0 still not standard
� Weak graphics card standard (GeForce 7300, ugh)
and as a sidenote:
� MacBook Pro & MacBook processors untouched
� iMac untouched
� iPod product line grows more stale by the day
� $2,499 standard price of Mac Pro ($2,299 for Education)
��$2,124 is the lowest you can configure the Mac Pro ($1,962 for Education)
���To get it that low, you have to drop the processors from 2.66GHz to 2GHz and and the hard drive from 250GB to 160GB
� Airport Extreme & Bluetooth 2.0 still not standard
� Weak graphics card standard (GeForce 7300, ugh)
and as a sidenote:
� MacBook Pro & MacBook processors untouched
� iMac untouched
� iPod product line grows more stale by the day