VirtualRain
Apr 28, 07:07 PM
If not this year then soon I predict Apple will revamp the MP to be a module system tied together using TB. Of course, I hope they'll wait until the 100GB TB spec is ratified and in use, otherwise it will be a step backwards. But overall I think it could be a serious improvement for the MP. You buy the "brain" you want (mini ala i3/i5, a middle brain with Desktop i5/i7, and a "pro" brain with 1 or 2 Xeons. The brain would be CPU, RAM, USB, and TB (and perhaps wireless and ethernet). You can buy storage containers and video containers as you need.
This system would be easily and quickly standardized (commoditized) giving continuing Apple's tight fist of control but letting them spin off the lowest margined, fasting changing areas of video processors and storage.
I personally think it will work a bit like RED's cameras ushering a new era of embedded and server room technology. You could have a fanless I/O station and/or monitor sitting on your desk with all the fans and heavy lifting equipment isolated somewhere else.
I agree this is is a good idea, but I highly doubt Apple will be the company to do this. Apple likes to decide what you need and tightly integrate it into a complete package. Modularity is not their thing.
What has me wondering, is how Apple might support the 14 SATA devices that the X79 chipset will natively provide. Presumably, they will determine that their average customer only needs X SATA ports, and the rest will be left unexposed. With TB support, this may not be that big of an issue for those that really need or want 10-12 drives.
This system would be easily and quickly standardized (commoditized) giving continuing Apple's tight fist of control but letting them spin off the lowest margined, fasting changing areas of video processors and storage.
I personally think it will work a bit like RED's cameras ushering a new era of embedded and server room technology. You could have a fanless I/O station and/or monitor sitting on your desk with all the fans and heavy lifting equipment isolated somewhere else.
I agree this is is a good idea, but I highly doubt Apple will be the company to do this. Apple likes to decide what you need and tightly integrate it into a complete package. Modularity is not their thing.
What has me wondering, is how Apple might support the 14 SATA devices that the X79 chipset will natively provide. Presumably, they will determine that their average customer only needs X SATA ports, and the rest will be left unexposed. With TB support, this may not be that big of an issue for those that really need or want 10-12 drives.
iStudentUK
Apr 11, 07:36 AM
This wasn't written by hand, it was typed out on a computer. You can save any other arguments you have on the subject, because they don't apply here based on your flawed premise.
To treat this as a programming line or whatever is a simplification. People don't think / they think __ . That is how we should interpret this equation, leading to 288.
To treat this as a programming line or whatever is a simplification. People don't think / they think __ . That is how we should interpret this equation, leading to 288.
dernhelm
Nov 22, 05:38 AM
Not PC guys, but good industrial and interface designers will. Starting with a clean sheet with little or no knowledge on the subject is an advantage; you tend to have different perceptions on how things work/could work. This gives a far greater idea base with simpler implementations as a result.
Advantage Apple.
So Apple has an advantage here because they have no experience in a market where it traditionally takes to get a device right? No, Apple doesn't have an advantage, any more than they did with the iPod - but they didn't need that advantage then either.
Apple could change the way phones are made as well, but only if they rethink the device from the ground up. Most phones have too many features that it takes too long to figure out how to use, don't have enough battery life, and are too painful to get hooked up to your computer so you can transfer photos and songs back and forth. Apple has the synchronization stuff down. If you can sync it like an iPod - and charge it in the process, its already leaps above most phones out there. But they cannot miss the interface.
If they want a camera on it (optional in my opinion) they have to make it dirt simple to use (scroll wheel to zoom, middle button to snap) and to get the photos taken on it into iPhoto. Otherwise, skip it altogether. And please don't make me fumble around to find the right button to hit to answer a call. Open it to answer the call, close it to hang up. And if you aren't going to put the number buttons in a tranditional layout - don't put them on there at all. I don't have the time or energy to learn some idiotic circular arrangement. I'd rather you put the numbers up on a touch screen and let me smudge up my phone than deal with a non-standard button arrangement. It also has to be hearty - I don't have time for a phone that stops working if I drop it 3 feet onto a carpeted floor.
It goes on and on. And that is why the interviewee is saying it's so hard. Apple does a pretty good job of industrial design, but even they may need an iteration or two to get it right. And in the mean time the current players could play some catch up.
Advantage Apple.
So Apple has an advantage here because they have no experience in a market where it traditionally takes to get a device right? No, Apple doesn't have an advantage, any more than they did with the iPod - but they didn't need that advantage then either.
Apple could change the way phones are made as well, but only if they rethink the device from the ground up. Most phones have too many features that it takes too long to figure out how to use, don't have enough battery life, and are too painful to get hooked up to your computer so you can transfer photos and songs back and forth. Apple has the synchronization stuff down. If you can sync it like an iPod - and charge it in the process, its already leaps above most phones out there. But they cannot miss the interface.
If they want a camera on it (optional in my opinion) they have to make it dirt simple to use (scroll wheel to zoom, middle button to snap) and to get the photos taken on it into iPhoto. Otherwise, skip it altogether. And please don't make me fumble around to find the right button to hit to answer a call. Open it to answer the call, close it to hang up. And if you aren't going to put the number buttons in a tranditional layout - don't put them on there at all. I don't have the time or energy to learn some idiotic circular arrangement. I'd rather you put the numbers up on a touch screen and let me smudge up my phone than deal with a non-standard button arrangement. It also has to be hearty - I don't have time for a phone that stops working if I drop it 3 feet onto a carpeted floor.
It goes on and on. And that is why the interviewee is saying it's so hard. Apple does a pretty good job of industrial design, but even they may need an iteration or two to get it right. And in the mean time the current players could play some catch up.
PlipPlop
Apr 20, 04:09 AM
Apple copying the power of the HTC Sensation. They should also concentrate on the IOS because its a joke compared to other new smartphone operating systems.
Noodlefarmer
Apr 26, 02:39 PM
"15.5" Vaio: 2.4Ghz Core i5, 4gb of Ram, Radeon 5470 512mb $860 Aug/2010. A mac with similar specs, and a weaker GPU would have cost me around a $1,000 extra, so I've been Apple free since Aug 2010.
And yet you can't stay away.
Sad.
And yet you can't stay away.
Sad.
0815
Apr 7, 10:48 AM
Apple is one greedy corporation that just loves to attack.. typical of the coming corporate takeover of humanity.
What are you talking about - how does this related to this store? It only shows that Apple was smart enough to plan ahead to make sure they get the components they need - not their fault that other companies lack any planing (or don't understand the market) and don't order in time what they need. Followers have to take what is left.
By now you should know that Apple is a greedy company, just wanting to hurt others and bankrupt several in the process.. its corporate america at its best.. hopefully NOT FOR TOO LONG.
repeating your comments don't make them any more true.
What are you talking about - how does this related to this store? It only shows that Apple was smart enough to plan ahead to make sure they get the components they need - not their fault that other companies lack any planing (or don't understand the market) and don't order in time what they need. Followers have to take what is left.
By now you should know that Apple is a greedy company, just wanting to hurt others and bankrupt several in the process.. its corporate america at its best.. hopefully NOT FOR TOO LONG.
repeating your comments don't make them any more true.
Sydde
Apr 15, 04:18 PM
Assuming (1) changes in tax policy have immediate effects, and (2) there is no such thing as as normal economic business cycles that overlay tax changes.
Is there such a thing as a "normal economic business cycle"? Seems like every cycle involves a different regulatory environment, different tax structure and different fad currents. How can one even suggest that what worked before will work again? (My car was overheating and losing coolant, so I replaced the water pump, therefore, if I experience more overheating and leaking, that is what I should do again.)
Really, the cycles appear to be too steep on both sides. To me, it looks like the sheep converging on what is hot at the moment are causing the bubbles. A roaring economy almost always leads to a crash, we should have smoother growth with shallower cycles, perhaps by throttling massive movements of capital. An unregulated market does correct itself as needed, but the corrections sure look a lot worse than they need to be. At least as far as I can see.
Is there such a thing as a "normal economic business cycle"? Seems like every cycle involves a different regulatory environment, different tax structure and different fad currents. How can one even suggest that what worked before will work again? (My car was overheating and losing coolant, so I replaced the water pump, therefore, if I experience more overheating and leaking, that is what I should do again.)
Really, the cycles appear to be too steep on both sides. To me, it looks like the sheep converging on what is hot at the moment are causing the bubbles. A roaring economy almost always leads to a crash, we should have smoother growth with shallower cycles, perhaps by throttling massive movements of capital. An unregulated market does correct itself as needed, but the corrections sure look a lot worse than they need to be. At least as far as I can see.
iansilv
May 7, 10:09 AM
Honestly, I am about to not renew. It's just not that useful. The only thing I would keep it for is the online idisk, and with dropbox or novadrive coming up with better and cheaper alternatives, I see no reason to continue to use it. However, if Apple makes it free, then they can use that as another feature of their products in general. They could sell the idisk storage, or give away 5 gigs or something, like drop box does.
MattSepeta
Apr 14, 04:17 PM
I never thought I'd see the day, but I agree with you. Everyone has to see a tax increase in order to solve the budget problems.
The non-tax accountant part of me (the tax accountant part of me wants the tax code as complicated as humanly possible) would love it if the corporate tax code was simplified and the tax rates reduced so that corporations actually paid taxes in line with other nations - we'd still probably see more revenue even with the decreased rates because the base would be broadened and corporations would actually pay. We should probably broaden the tax base for individuals by eliminating deductions and then eliminate the Bush tax cuts for everyone (which will increase tax rates across the board, more so at the upper two brackets). I'm not opposed to adding a VAT with a low rate either.
I'd like to see plenty of spending cuts too - stop the three wasteful and pointless wars we are fighting would be a great start, then cut defense spending. Like it or not, I think we need to acknowledge that social security needs changes - a decrease in benefits and removing the limit on payroll taxes for social security would be a good start.
But then again, I'm a moderate (though I am generally fiscally libertarian) and I understand the urgency with which we need to eliminate our deficit and decrease our national debt. I don't have much hope for any of this happening, since neither side can seem to acknowledge that we need a combo of what they both propose.
Spot on. If we are going to raise taxes we should raise them on EVERYBODY. I would gladly take a hit if everyone else was going to.
We should also cut spending across the board. Cut spending on EVERYTHING.
No singling anybody/thing out, no exempting anybody/anything.
The non-tax accountant part of me (the tax accountant part of me wants the tax code as complicated as humanly possible) would love it if the corporate tax code was simplified and the tax rates reduced so that corporations actually paid taxes in line with other nations - we'd still probably see more revenue even with the decreased rates because the base would be broadened and corporations would actually pay. We should probably broaden the tax base for individuals by eliminating deductions and then eliminate the Bush tax cuts for everyone (which will increase tax rates across the board, more so at the upper two brackets). I'm not opposed to adding a VAT with a low rate either.
I'd like to see plenty of spending cuts too - stop the three wasteful and pointless wars we are fighting would be a great start, then cut defense spending. Like it or not, I think we need to acknowledge that social security needs changes - a decrease in benefits and removing the limit on payroll taxes for social security would be a good start.
But then again, I'm a moderate (though I am generally fiscally libertarian) and I understand the urgency with which we need to eliminate our deficit and decrease our national debt. I don't have much hope for any of this happening, since neither side can seem to acknowledge that we need a combo of what they both propose.
Spot on. If we are going to raise taxes we should raise them on EVERYBODY. I would gladly take a hit if everyone else was going to.
We should also cut spending across the board. Cut spending on EVERYTHING.
No singling anybody/thing out, no exempting anybody/anything.
AidenShaw
Mar 29, 02:20 PM
In 5-10 years the iPod will become extinct. By then the touch will be hanging on a thin wire.
Note that MS is dropping the standalone Zune hardware, and moving the Zune interface into Windows Phone 7.
If your phone can do it all, why make standalone music players?
Note that MS is dropping the standalone Zune hardware, and moving the Zune interface into Windows Phone 7.
If your phone can do it all, why make standalone music players?
Tzu
Jul 21, 06:16 PM
Ohhhh BABY! Merom is all I'm waiting for before I get a new Pro. My old powerbook is just limping along... must.... hold out.... for new chipsets... arg!
Piggie
Apr 26, 04:11 PM
Apple could make a whole range of phones in different sizes, from different materials at different price points.
Apple could licence iOS to others to make phones running their OS thus opening up iTunes sales to an even larger audience.
I don't expect Apple will do either.
Only in the long term future will we be able to look back to now and know if Apple did the right thing, and grew to be one of the world leaders or died a slow and painful death.
Anyone got a crystal ball, or know Dr Who? ;)
Apple could licence iOS to others to make phones running their OS thus opening up iTunes sales to an even larger audience.
I don't expect Apple will do either.
Only in the long term future will we be able to look back to now and know if Apple did the right thing, and grew to be one of the world leaders or died a slow and painful death.
Anyone got a crystal ball, or know Dr Who? ;)
VanMac
Apr 26, 02:09 PM
Competition is good :) Keeps Apple on their toes
Don't need another MS Monopoly.......
Don't need another MS Monopoly.......
0815
Apr 5, 02:51 PM
You seriously see this as a feature? Apple only is able to do this by signing agreements with a carrier, and being on a 1-product line. Why do you think you get that release so quickly on your AT&T iPhone? Because they don't offer a T-Mobile iPhone, nor does T-Mobile or anyone else support it (until Verizon agreed to Apple's terms)... An android device is available on any carrier, and in this country we have multiple technologies (CDMA, IDEN, GSM 1700, GSM 2100, LTE, WiMax, etc etc)... if you're comparing the iPhone which has been offered on ONE network with ONE technology (which isn't even the latest as of 2010), that's a bad comparison. Furthermore, it's not difficult to release an all-device software update when "all devices" consist of ONE device.
If you're going to make a comparison, at least make it legit.
Please recheck your math and research on how many carriers the iPhone is available WORLDWIDE - you know, the world is bigger than just the US - and all those carriers worldwide are not allowed to put any crap on it or modify it in a way that makes maintaining updates too expensive. Every iPhone User worldwide can update the same day.
Guess you don't mind waiting for a fix for a security flaw for a couple of month (even though it is already fixed in the 'open' source)
If you're going to make a comparison, at least make it legit.
Please recheck your math and research on how many carriers the iPhone is available WORLDWIDE - you know, the world is bigger than just the US - and all those carriers worldwide are not allowed to put any crap on it or modify it in a way that makes maintaining updates too expensive. Every iPhone User worldwide can update the same day.
Guess you don't mind waiting for a fix for a security flaw for a couple of month (even though it is already fixed in the 'open' source)
Kingsly
Aug 11, 12:42 PM
About. Freaking. Time.
This is one rumor that I cant afford to miss.
This is one rumor that I cant afford to miss.
ChrisTX
Apr 8, 07:29 AM
There were many tablets before the iPad. Just that they all sucked and mostly tried to use PC chips, leading to extremely short battery life, being slow, and hundreds of other factors causing them to sell in very small amounts. But it is true that Apple did the right thing in their innovation.
Were there truly tablets or just netvirtibles? There's a huge difference, and a reason why those never took off. Again no one wanted any of those because they all suck. People now don't want a tablet computer, they want an iPad.
Were there truly tablets or just netvirtibles? There's a huge difference, and a reason why those never took off. Again no one wanted any of those because they all suck. People now don't want a tablet computer, they want an iPad.
onigami
May 6, 02:00 AM
This story broke 5 minutes ago and I'm already over it... Who cares if Apple wants to use something they think is new and revolutionary? Your opinion isn't going to stop them. While you're over here thinking "I can't do bootcamp with ARM" Apple is thinking "Bootcamp will be obsolite when we get done here" :apple:
You must really love the stuff you write. You must also love the sound your voice makes when it talks. Since clearly what we write will have no impact whatsoever, why bother even having a forum? Hell, why even write a post like that?
Get that iPhone out of your ass, seriously.
You know how long it takes me to create an ARM version of my code on the Mac App Store?
Two minutes.
What do you want, a gold star? A cookie?
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.
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 there's no real reason or benefit for them to switch to ARM. They have an incredibly solid partnership with Intel (they got Thunderbolt first, for Pete's sake), and what devices that could use ARM-like processors are already built in-house. If they really wanted a low-cost processor for laptops (again, no beneficial reason), they could just go for the AMD's Trinity platform with Fusion APUs. They already have Radeon GPUs in their entire lineup, don't see why they can't switch. Or even better, just build x86 chips in-house like they do with the A series.
You must really love the stuff you write. You must also love the sound your voice makes when it talks. Since clearly what we write will have no impact whatsoever, why bother even having a forum? Hell, why even write a post like that?
Get that iPhone out of your ass, seriously.
You know how long it takes me to create an ARM version of my code on the Mac App Store?
Two minutes.
What do you want, a gold star? A cookie?
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.
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 there's no real reason or benefit for them to switch to ARM. They have an incredibly solid partnership with Intel (they got Thunderbolt first, for Pete's sake), and what devices that could use ARM-like processors are already built in-house. If they really wanted a low-cost processor for laptops (again, no beneficial reason), they could just go for the AMD's Trinity platform with Fusion APUs. They already have Radeon GPUs in their entire lineup, don't see why they can't switch. Or even better, just build x86 chips in-house like they do with the A series.
matt90036
Apr 6, 05:33 PM
Score, iPad2=1, Xoom=0.
but really, if we adjust for # of sales the score is more like:
ipad2=20, Xoom=1
you really dont know what you talking about. less competion means apple is winning and consumers are loosing.
but really, if we adjust for # of sales the score is more like:
ipad2=20, Xoom=1
you really dont know what you talking about. less competion means apple is winning and consumers are loosing.
cincoaranas
May 6, 08:12 AM
Moving away from Intel in their notebooks and desktops would be a HUGE mistake in my opinion. Intel is the big dog and they have the resources to keep innovating. I guess if they plan on making everything iOS then it makes a little more sense, but for true blue OSX machines Intel has the muscle.
I think they can pull it off. I watched as they went from Motorola 680X0, to PowerPC (which was huge) and then to Intel (hell froze over!) So this happening would not be the least bit surprising or concerning.
I think they can pull it off. I watched as they went from Motorola 680X0, to PowerPC (which was huge) and then to Intel (hell froze over!) So this happening would not be the least bit surprising or concerning.
Piggie
Apr 23, 06:05 PM
Ok, I'll try this question, which is a fair question...............
Everyone says again and again, Apple does not aim for the high end.
If we put Mac Pro's to one side as they are the proper PC's of the Apple Mac world.
Let's speak about iMac's
They are Apple mass consumer, man/woman in the street computers.
They type of customers who just want to enjoy their computer and be able to get the jobs they want done in a nice and easy way.
I think that's a fair statement.
Also, as has been said, over and over and OVER again, these customers, that the iMac's are aimed at, are not Nerds, Not Tech Freaks, Not spec junkies.
They are just normal people who probably don't want to be worried about specs and to be honest as long as it looks nice and moves smoothy on screen, don't care what's inside the case.
Given this. If these "typical consumers, who don't care or really know about specs" are today, looking at their current 1920x1080 screens, or 1920x1200 screens, and they cannot see the individual pixels from their normal, let's say two feet away viewing distance, then what on earth would be the point in increasing costs, and slowing down an iMac by lumbering it with a higher resolution screen?
What is the point, for these consumers, to increase the screen resolution when they can't make out the individual pixels currently?
Everyone says again and again, Apple does not aim for the high end.
If we put Mac Pro's to one side as they are the proper PC's of the Apple Mac world.
Let's speak about iMac's
They are Apple mass consumer, man/woman in the street computers.
They type of customers who just want to enjoy their computer and be able to get the jobs they want done in a nice and easy way.
I think that's a fair statement.
Also, as has been said, over and over and OVER again, these customers, that the iMac's are aimed at, are not Nerds, Not Tech Freaks, Not spec junkies.
They are just normal people who probably don't want to be worried about specs and to be honest as long as it looks nice and moves smoothy on screen, don't care what's inside the case.
Given this. If these "typical consumers, who don't care or really know about specs" are today, looking at their current 1920x1080 screens, or 1920x1200 screens, and they cannot see the individual pixels from their normal, let's say two feet away viewing distance, then what on earth would be the point in increasing costs, and slowing down an iMac by lumbering it with a higher resolution screen?
What is the point, for these consumers, to increase the screen resolution when they can't make out the individual pixels currently?
koruki
Apr 18, 03:42 PM
You are funny. Do you know that Samsung spends 10 times more than Apple on R&D?
Well isn't that just embarassing? lol 10 times the money and they can't find SHI*T :mad:
Well isn't that just embarassing? lol 10 times the money and they can't find SHI*T :mad:
cerote
Apr 5, 09:09 PM
Hmmm... I think I'll go jailbreak my iPod touch now.
Maybe then I can get a toggle switch for wifi on my home screen. :rolleyes:
SBSettings.
Toggles for settings that you can get to with a single swipe across the status bar.
Maybe then I can get a toggle switch for wifi on my home screen. :rolleyes:
SBSettings.
Toggles for settings that you can get to with a single swipe across the status bar.
radiohead14
Mar 30, 03:11 PM
just signed up. the whole process is actually really easy. i was up and running within seconds. i've been buying all my music from amazon for years now, and having the convenience of your digital music automatically sync'd up to your personal locker is great. it even scanned my 104GB music collection within 2 mins! pretty cool
jaw04005
May 7, 10:34 AM
If true, this is good news.
However, it would make sense Apple would limit the free service to iPod touch, iPhone, Mac and iPad owners. Maybe then it’ll remain ad free.
Their next step should be to purchase DropBox and replace iDisk or at least implement a faster WebDAV solution. iDisk is dog slow even on fast connections compared to other services.
Then they should up the storage limit from 20GB to 50GB and finally implement LaLa-like iTunes Web streaming.
However, it would make sense Apple would limit the free service to iPod touch, iPhone, Mac and iPad owners. Maybe then it’ll remain ad free.
Their next step should be to purchase DropBox and replace iDisk or at least implement a faster WebDAV solution. iDisk is dog slow even on fast connections compared to other services.
Then they should up the storage limit from 20GB to 50GB and finally implement LaLa-like iTunes Web streaming.