Jeevs bost
Jul 31, 06:30 AM
Yeah, agreed, but I'm just saying that there's no truth in the "photographer" crap. This is totally false.
louis Fashion
Mar 29, 08:27 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)
This is quite valuable, since there is currently no way to store music on your computer.
and the Verizons and ATT of the world will be happy to charge you if you bust your data cap.
This is quite valuable, since there is currently no way to store music on your computer.
and the Verizons and ATT of the world will be happy to charge you if you bust your data cap.
Hattig
Jul 30, 08:17 AM
so what CPU would power the phone ?
Something based off of the ARM architecture. Maybe a TI OMAP processor (a 150MHz TI OMAP 1510 powers my Motorola phone, that has an integrated ARM9 CPU, I could see an Apple phone using the newer 1710 for example). There's dozens of other mobile phone chipset providers of course, with their own ARM based solutions integrating varying types of functionality.
Something based off of the ARM architecture. Maybe a TI OMAP processor (a 150MHz TI OMAP 1510 powers my Motorola phone, that has an integrated ARM9 CPU, I could see an Apple phone using the newer 1710 for example). There's dozens of other mobile phone chipset providers of course, with their own ARM based solutions integrating varying types of functionality.
SiliconAddict
Nov 26, 02:58 PM
Simple...it's NOT gonna happen anytime soon.
The Tablet market is a sad failure, as it represents a tech in search of a purpose...nobody needs or wants it.
Hint? Think Origami, one among too many MS failures...just like the Zune in the next months.
Apple will NOT enter the fabled Tablet market again, as the focus of demand is on notebooks, nothing else...yet another borndead rumor.
God I'm so sick of people making this excuse. So just because no one else has found the right formula it means that Apple can't right?
Have you ever used a tablet before? If not you are missing out. The experience feels much more personal for some reason. It feels like a platform that is begging for Apple to do something with it.
PS- Let me guess you were one of those people screeching that Apple would NEVER go Intel. Would never release an iPod with photo capabilities or video. Would never allow Windows to run on a Mac.
Lol. I totally forgot about the origami. What a flop!
Its running a slightly modified version of Windows. What did you expect? :rolleyes: Anyone who comes out with a tablet needs to do more then slap their OS on it. there needs to be a fundimental shift in HOW you interact with the OS.
The Tablet market is a sad failure, as it represents a tech in search of a purpose...nobody needs or wants it.
Hint? Think Origami, one among too many MS failures...just like the Zune in the next months.
Apple will NOT enter the fabled Tablet market again, as the focus of demand is on notebooks, nothing else...yet another borndead rumor.
God I'm so sick of people making this excuse. So just because no one else has found the right formula it means that Apple can't right?
Have you ever used a tablet before? If not you are missing out. The experience feels much more personal for some reason. It feels like a platform that is begging for Apple to do something with it.
PS- Let me guess you were one of those people screeching that Apple would NEVER go Intel. Would never release an iPod with photo capabilities or video. Would never allow Windows to run on a Mac.
Lol. I totally forgot about the origami. What a flop!
Its running a slightly modified version of Windows. What did you expect? :rolleyes: Anyone who comes out with a tablet needs to do more then slap their OS on it. there needs to be a fundimental shift in HOW you interact with the OS.
Josias
Aug 5, 01:42 PM
I'd kill for this!!! I hate osx msn messenger :(!
True, and if you wanna use your iSight for other than PhotoBooth, and have videochat over MSN, you will need something even worse called aMSN, found it in a MR guide...:p
Can Adium do videchat to MSN? (with audio! There's no audio on the videochat's in aMSN:mad: :p )
True, and if you wanna use your iSight for other than PhotoBooth, and have videochat over MSN, you will need something even worse called aMSN, found it in a MR guide...:p
Can Adium do videchat to MSN? (with audio! There's no audio on the videochat's in aMSN:mad: :p )
Hattig
Nov 26, 06:52 PM
This can be done quite cheaply, if Apple doesn't use off the shelf PC components - which is why current tablet PCs are so expensive. An Intel ULV processor is not cheap.
Shame that Apple moved away from the PowerPC really, when it comes to applications such as this. They could use a $20 PPC 750CL processor (16mm^2 die size, compare to the ~150mm^2 PC processors) at up to 1GHz (~2W power consumption at 700MHz), with a 30GB 1.8" hard drive (same as iPod), 512MB memory ... that'd be cheap (the display would probably be the most expensive part).
However if this is aimed at Q12008 then Intel will have some processors on 45nm, which will reduce size and power consumption. Also the chipsets are cheap and good.
I don't understand why PC tablets cost so much when they use components that you see in cheap laptops. Maybe there's a hefty OS + software cost, which Apple would not have as its inhouse. So there is a good chance for Apple to be competitively priced. The cost is the major issue with tablets - $500 - good. $1000 - can deal with probably. $2000 - haha.
Shame that Apple moved away from the PowerPC really, when it comes to applications such as this. They could use a $20 PPC 750CL processor (16mm^2 die size, compare to the ~150mm^2 PC processors) at up to 1GHz (~2W power consumption at 700MHz), with a 30GB 1.8" hard drive (same as iPod), 512MB memory ... that'd be cheap (the display would probably be the most expensive part).
However if this is aimed at Q12008 then Intel will have some processors on 45nm, which will reduce size and power consumption. Also the chipsets are cheap and good.
I don't understand why PC tablets cost so much when they use components that you see in cheap laptops. Maybe there's a hefty OS + software cost, which Apple would not have as its inhouse. So there is a good chance for Apple to be competitively priced. The cost is the major issue with tablets - $500 - good. $1000 - can deal with probably. $2000 - haha.
Blakeco123
Apr 23, 04:37 PM
sorry just a correction the resolution isnt 3200x3200 its 3200x2000 i just checked
marksman
Apr 7, 01:03 PM
Ehh, purposeful or not (as a sabotage)...not good news for iPad competition:( Which isnt good news for us iPad users...Apple needs constant pressure to release revolutionary products.
People keep saying this like if they say it enough it will make it true.
The iPad and iPad 2 were designed, created, released and supported with ZERO Competition.
Apple creates products and experiences for their customers. I know it is hard to believe that everyone is just not as lazy as they need to be, and only do something if someone else pushes them but it is possible.
What people don't seem to realize is APPLE is the COMPETITION that pushes the others, not the other way around. Apple destroyed the MP3 player market made with sucky products. They destroyed the smartphone market made with sucky products, they created the tablet market. They don't need competition, but all these other companies need Apple to steamroll them I guess.
People keep saying this like if they say it enough it will make it true.
The iPad and iPad 2 were designed, created, released and supported with ZERO Competition.
Apple creates products and experiences for their customers. I know it is hard to believe that everyone is just not as lazy as they need to be, and only do something if someone else pushes them but it is possible.
What people don't seem to realize is APPLE is the COMPETITION that pushes the others, not the other way around. Apple destroyed the MP3 player market made with sucky products. They destroyed the smartphone market made with sucky products, they created the tablet market. They don't need competition, but all these other companies need Apple to steamroll them I guess.
Jimmy James
Mar 29, 11:28 AM
This pay-per-use cloud accessible storage seems to be a good idea only as a supplement to on-board device storage.
Ownership of data is a concern. If I buy music through the cloud service does that affect my ownership of the music/data? Can I download the music to my hard drive and have unrestricted access to it after I cancel my cloud subscription? At that point, why would I want to continue paying for service for something I already have in my possession. And why not have the option of streaming this data from my own computer on which it's already contained and for which I already pay to have internet bandwidth (I realize that some people may have very limited bandwidth allowance)? If I'm only going to be keeping a small percentage of my audio online then it's one more thing to keep track of and manage. If I keep everything on the cloud then I'm paying a substantial monthly fee that annually could pay for a lot more memory on my device in the first place. Problem solved.
I just returned from an international trip. When I travel is typically when I use my iDevice most often. Music in the rental car, watching videos during down time or travel time. Expensive, bandwidth hungry cloud data is not an option [for me] when traveling internationally. I also take long road trips with a significant amount of time spent outside of service areas.
Too many downsides. Too many apparent restrictions.
Ownership of data is a concern. If I buy music through the cloud service does that affect my ownership of the music/data? Can I download the music to my hard drive and have unrestricted access to it after I cancel my cloud subscription? At that point, why would I want to continue paying for service for something I already have in my possession. And why not have the option of streaming this data from my own computer on which it's already contained and for which I already pay to have internet bandwidth (I realize that some people may have very limited bandwidth allowance)? If I'm only going to be keeping a small percentage of my audio online then it's one more thing to keep track of and manage. If I keep everything on the cloud then I'm paying a substantial monthly fee that annually could pay for a lot more memory on my device in the first place. Problem solved.
I just returned from an international trip. When I travel is typically when I use my iDevice most often. Music in the rental car, watching videos during down time or travel time. Expensive, bandwidth hungry cloud data is not an option [for me] when traveling internationally. I also take long road trips with a significant amount of time spent outside of service areas.
Too many downsides. Too many apparent restrictions.
ergle2
Sep 16, 05:15 AM
At most it would have the yet to be released Mobility X1700 or currently available Geforce GO7600.
There is simply not enough room for either a Mobility X1800 or Geforce GO7700 chip in this 1" thick notebook. Stay in fairyland . . . why can't people be a bit realistic?
Thanks for the condescending tone in response to an off-the-cuff "would be nice" comment -- it makes you look such a man.
Of course, given the Go 7700 is effectively an 80nm 7600 -- and therefore should use less power -- I'd say it was realistic to suggest it be used.
Well done.
There is simply not enough room for either a Mobility X1800 or Geforce GO7700 chip in this 1" thick notebook. Stay in fairyland . . . why can't people be a bit realistic?
Thanks for the condescending tone in response to an off-the-cuff "would be nice" comment -- it makes you look such a man.
Of course, given the Go 7700 is effectively an 80nm 7600 -- and therefore should use less power -- I'd say it was realistic to suggest it be used.
Well done.
wordoflife
Mar 28, 09:56 AM
On second thought, I don't believe it. I think someone was just over analyzing this.
Multimedia
Sep 16, 12:19 AM
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.
Whichever uses less battery power is what I would prefer as long as it can still drive a 30" ACD or Dell when it's plugged into AC.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.The 2GHz downgrade is $300 not $75. Where did you get that number? Apple probably pays a lot less for each so this discount seems fair to me. Seems to me the down and up grade Mac Pro processor pricing is geard to steer buyers to the 2.66GHz model. I don't agree with you Apple is stealing anything from any of us. I think your use of the word "robbery" is not appropriate expecially since your figure of $75 is a flat out fabrication of your imagination. :rolleyes: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.Dyslexia at work. Laptop processors are directly soldered to the LB to keep the profile slim, iMacs & minis socketed.Personally, I think the 2.33GHz part price is insane considering the small speed-bump, but that's up to Apple.While I agree the 2.33GHz upgrades are too expensive on the iMac, I expect the 2.33GHz will be the standard part in both the 15" and 17" top MBP models - no doubt on the 17". Who knows, Apple's cost per 2.33 may even drop every 30 days or so in their contract with Intel.
Whichever uses less battery power is what I would prefer as long as it can still drive a 30" ACD or Dell when it's plugged into AC.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.The 2GHz downgrade is $300 not $75. Where did you get that number? Apple probably pays a lot less for each so this discount seems fair to me. Seems to me the down and up grade Mac Pro processor pricing is geard to steer buyers to the 2.66GHz model. I don't agree with you Apple is stealing anything from any of us. I think your use of the word "robbery" is not appropriate expecially since your figure of $75 is a flat out fabrication of your imagination. :rolleyes: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.Dyslexia at work. Laptop processors are directly soldered to the LB to keep the profile slim, iMacs & minis socketed.Personally, I think the 2.33GHz part price is insane considering the small speed-bump, but that's up to Apple.While I agree the 2.33GHz upgrades are too expensive on the iMac, I expect the 2.33GHz will be the standard part in both the 15" and 17" top MBP models - no doubt on the 17". Who knows, Apple's cost per 2.33 may even drop every 30 days or so in their contract with Intel.
Consultant
Apr 18, 03:35 PM
Yay go Apple. From the little guy everyone cheered for to the ... big guy that sues everyone and still has everyone cheering for.
So you think Apple's goal is to be free R&D for the rest of the industry? :rolleyes:
So you think Apple's goal is to be free R&D for the rest of the industry? :rolleyes:
rdowns
Apr 5, 01:17 PM
Honestly, I hope Toyota tells Apple to stuff it.
Lame. You can be sure Toyota will capitulate to the Apple strong arm.
Not surprised! Toyota should not take it!
+++
I love Apple for many reasons, but I also have a hard time with some of their ideology.
Don't give in Toyota!
Its our devices, and if we want to modify them for our own use, so be it.
Does anyone read the stories before commenting on them anymore? :rolleyes:
You didn't even need to click to read the full story.
Toyota had agreed to do so to "maintain their good relationship with Apple," our Velti contact told me on the phone.
Lame. You can be sure Toyota will capitulate to the Apple strong arm.
Not surprised! Toyota should not take it!
+++
I love Apple for many reasons, but I also have a hard time with some of their ideology.
Don't give in Toyota!
Its our devices, and if we want to modify them for our own use, so be it.
Does anyone read the stories before commenting on them anymore? :rolleyes:
You didn't even need to click to read the full story.
Toyota had agreed to do so to "maintain their good relationship with Apple," our Velti contact told me on the phone.
Popeye206
Apr 23, 08:45 PM
Depends on who you talk too. OS X presents resolution as just the vertical and horizontal pixel counts, without mention of the PPI. For example, looking at System Preferences > Displays will show resolutions in this format, w/o mention of display size and PPI. The iPhone 4 tech specs seems to do the same thing, where resolution is linked to the pixel count and the PPI is mentioned afterwords.
pantech crux cases. verizon
pantech crux cases.
pantech crux cases. pantech
pantech crux cases and covers.
ftaok
Apr 7, 02:51 PM
I can say CONFIDENTLY that the war is NOT over. It's been what 2 years? No way. Apple may have the upper hand in the battle but has NOT won the war.
What I'm saying is that by the time Android or WebOS or QNX catch up to the iPad, Apple will already be onto the next big thing. Tablets will have peaked, and the weak players will have dropped out.
So instead of following Apple and forever having your products known as iPad killers, why not spend the money that you'd put into designing mediocre tablets into creating the next device? I'm sure that Sammy, Moto, RIM, etc all have some budget to develop the next generation of devices, but I think they need to spend a lot more on the R&D.
For instance, when netbooks were all the rage, everyone was demanding that Apple come up with their own netbook. For whatever reason, Apple wasn't (and still isn't) in the netbook market. Instead, they spent their energies (and money) developing the successor to the netbook. In hindsight, we should have all seen it coming. Jobs even said that Apple couldn't make a decent 'computer' for less than $500. Apple was busy creating the iPad to be that device that folks would shell out $500 for. Genius.
So instead of waging a long, drawn out war against Apple for a small slice of the tablet market, work on making the successor to the tablet.
What I'm saying is that by the time Android or WebOS or QNX catch up to the iPad, Apple will already be onto the next big thing. Tablets will have peaked, and the weak players will have dropped out.
So instead of following Apple and forever having your products known as iPad killers, why not spend the money that you'd put into designing mediocre tablets into creating the next device? I'm sure that Sammy, Moto, RIM, etc all have some budget to develop the next generation of devices, but I think they need to spend a lot more on the R&D.
For instance, when netbooks were all the rage, everyone was demanding that Apple come up with their own netbook. For whatever reason, Apple wasn't (and still isn't) in the netbook market. Instead, they spent their energies (and money) developing the successor to the netbook. In hindsight, we should have all seen it coming. Jobs even said that Apple couldn't make a decent 'computer' for less than $500. Apple was busy creating the iPad to be that device that folks would shell out $500 for. Genius.
So instead of waging a long, drawn out war against Apple for a small slice of the tablet market, work on making the successor to the tablet.
toddybody
May 4, 09:21 PM
(yes, my Internet in the 90s on was cable, at something like 8 Mbps).
8Mbps in the 90's? I've got 12 now and think that's wonderful...you're probable one of those Xfinity snobs:rolleyes: jk. Wow, I knew non US ISPs push some serious speed...idk why Amurika can't get none a dat goodnis
8Mbps in the 90's? I've got 12 now and think that's wonderful...you're probable one of those Xfinity snobs:rolleyes: jk. Wow, I knew non US ISPs push some serious speed...idk why Amurika can't get none a dat goodnis
Hattig
Nov 26, 06:52 PM
This can be done quite cheaply, if Apple doesn't use off the shelf PC components - which is why current tablet PCs are so expensive. An Intel ULV processor is not cheap.
Shame that Apple moved away from the PowerPC really, when it comes to applications such as this. They could use a $20 PPC 750CL processor (16mm^2 die size, compare to the ~150mm^2 PC processors) at up to 1GHz (~2W power consumption at 700MHz), with a 30GB 1.8" hard drive (same as iPod), 512MB memory ... that'd be cheap (the display would probably be the most expensive part).
However if this is aimed at Q12008 then Intel will have some processors on 45nm, which will reduce size and power consumption. Also the chipsets are cheap and good.
I don't understand why PC tablets cost so much when they use components that you see in cheap laptops. Maybe there's a hefty OS + software cost, which Apple would not have as its inhouse. So there is a good chance for Apple to be competitively priced. The cost is the major issue with tablets - $500 - good. $1000 - can deal with probably. $2000 - haha.
Shame that Apple moved away from the PowerPC really, when it comes to applications such as this. They could use a $20 PPC 750CL processor (16mm^2 die size, compare to the ~150mm^2 PC processors) at up to 1GHz (~2W power consumption at 700MHz), with a 30GB 1.8" hard drive (same as iPod), 512MB memory ... that'd be cheap (the display would probably be the most expensive part).
However if this is aimed at Q12008 then Intel will have some processors on 45nm, which will reduce size and power consumption. Also the chipsets are cheap and good.
I don't understand why PC tablets cost so much when they use components that you see in cheap laptops. Maybe there's a hefty OS + software cost, which Apple would not have as its inhouse. So there is a good chance for Apple to be competitively priced. The cost is the major issue with tablets - $500 - good. $1000 - can deal with probably. $2000 - haha.
2ndPath
Aug 7, 06:16 PM
That brings up a question I was wondering about...since they only offer 1 model that can be customized by Apple...what will the Apple Stores and Authorized Resellers have in stock...Just the base model?
I was also wondering about that. The stores also have additional configurations of the MacBooks and MacBook Pros available. Probably Apple will have three standard configurations in the Stores. The stores could also just customize the machines for the customers. I don't know how easy it is to switch the CPUs, but all the other components, which can be customized, seem to be easily changable.
I was also wondering about that. The stores also have additional configurations of the MacBooks and MacBook Pros available. Probably Apple will have three standard configurations in the Stores. The stores could also just customize the machines for the customers. I don't know how easy it is to switch the CPUs, but all the other components, which can be customized, seem to be easily changable.
Popeye206
Mar 29, 04:27 PM
Link please.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate
http://www.szcpost.com/2010/05/foxconn-suicides.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate
http://www.szcpost.com/2010/05/foxconn-suicides.html
AidenShaw
Mar 29, 09:01 PM
I simply disregard comments that have to do with religion basically.
Silence is acquiescence, very well stated by Pastor Martin Niem�ller:
First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came
I don't disregard comments that try to push a particular view on spirituality, gender identity/expression, or other personal and civil rights issues. Sometimes the comments are appropriate, but other times they are not. In my opinion if they're not, I'll say so.
Silence is acquiescence, very well stated by Pastor Martin Niem�ller:
First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came
I don't disregard comments that try to push a particular view on spirituality, gender identity/expression, or other personal and civil rights issues. Sometimes the comments are appropriate, but other times they are not. In my opinion if they're not, I'll say so.
el3ktro
May 8, 05:34 AM
That would be awesome. They should at least cut the price. MobileMe adds so much value to your iProducts, I have a MacBook, an iPhone and since yesterday an iPad, and MobileMe makes all three of them so much more valuable. But I know lots of people who would like to use MobileMe, but who say that 79� is just to much for it.
Renverse
Apr 18, 03:39 PM
You are funny. Do you know that Samsung spends 10 times more than Apple on R&D?
Indeed. Apple spends less on R&D than many of their competitors.
Indeed. Apple spends less on R&D than many of their competitors.
amols
Nov 22, 01:23 AM
Yeah sure...I hope they do know who makes iPods :)