RestlessDeviant
Apr 26, 04:41 PM
I've been sitting on a **** windows mobile phone for about 2 years & decided to upgrade about 3 months ago & decided to wait for iphone5.
I buy macbooks & I'm not a mid / late cycle buyer & don't mind waiting for something good.
However Apple lost my custom today. All these stories about putting the release date back and rumors about a 'small' update.....
I ain't hanging around to find out. Just ordered a Galaxy S II
Android here i come.
I buy macbooks & I'm not a mid / late cycle buyer & don't mind waiting for something good.
However Apple lost my custom today. All these stories about putting the release date back and rumors about a 'small' update.....
I ain't hanging around to find out. Just ordered a Galaxy S II
Android here i come.
ivladster
Apr 18, 04:18 PM
The fact that they are now suing Samsung, and waited this long, might give validity to this theory, as they did not want to sue them while Sammy was still a key supplier for them.
Something to think about.
Actually Apple just recently got granted those designs for iOS and iPhone 3GS, they were waiting for US Patent Office to approve them.
Something to think about.
Actually Apple just recently got granted those designs for iOS and iPhone 3GS, they were waiting for US Patent Office to approve them.
hugo7
Apr 25, 10:26 AM
Am I the only one who sees the threat of moving to Android as a petty attempt to get Steve to reply? The writer of this email obviously didn't do any research, and he obviously doesn't understand that Steve would see right through a threat like that...
That thinly-veiled threat was pathetic. If you're concerned about the lack of privacy on iOS then running off to Android really makes sense. Sigh.
That thinly-veiled threat was pathetic. If you're concerned about the lack of privacy on iOS then running off to Android really makes sense. Sigh.
Eidorian
Jul 21, 02:05 PM
^^^^No kidding eh? Intel is on the move this year! Releasing products left/right¢re!
This WWDC will either be amazing or a total letdown?I doubt we'll see Core 2 Duo machines next Tuesday, but it's possible. :rolleyes:
Otherwise I expect a WWDC rollout.
This WWDC will either be amazing or a total letdown?I doubt we'll see Core 2 Duo machines next Tuesday, but it's possible. :rolleyes:
Otherwise I expect a WWDC rollout.
SC68Cal
Jul 21, 02:37 PM
Noooo....must...resist urges to buy...new MBP's
Just have to keep reminding myself I cant afford these things right now..
Oh, you can afford it.... it's just that you'll be eating ramen for quite a while.
Just have to keep reminding myself I cant afford these things right now..
Oh, you can afford it.... it's just that you'll be eating ramen for quite a while.
ariza910
Sep 10, 11:48 PM
this event is going to be simulcast in LONDON. Does this mean that movies will be able to be purchased by folks in the UK??? as far as I know you still cant purchased TV shows sold through iTunes in the UK:confused:
Strange Apple would work out US and UK movie distribution deals at the same time.
Strange Apple would work out US and UK movie distribution deals at the same time.
alent1234
Mar 28, 09:58 AM
They also will start having 3GS users come off of AppleCare contracts.
Nobody will buy a new iPhone if their's breaks after AC is up ...knowing that maybe in the Fall we will see an iPhone5.
Again, leaves to much of an 'open window' for defections based on frustration, etc.
...and as pointed out already by others... I agree, iPhone4 is already a dated design. delaying will just erode Apple's lead in the ever growing mobile hardware market.
Everyday another competitors comes along... it is no longer 2007... their lead is not what it use to be.
us 3GS users have been eligible for upgrades since last month
i was going to wait for the iphone 5 but my 3GS had water damage so i went over to android
Nobody will buy a new iPhone if their's breaks after AC is up ...knowing that maybe in the Fall we will see an iPhone5.
Again, leaves to much of an 'open window' for defections based on frustration, etc.
...and as pointed out already by others... I agree, iPhone4 is already a dated design. delaying will just erode Apple's lead in the ever growing mobile hardware market.
Everyday another competitors comes along... it is no longer 2007... their lead is not what it use to be.
us 3GS users have been eligible for upgrades since last month
i was going to wait for the iphone 5 but my 3GS had water damage so i went over to android
ccroo
Sep 11, 12:21 AM
If there is no new case design (maybe SR will bring one) it might be easy for Apple to just slip Merom's into the MBP line beneath the iPod/streaming/video fanfare. Without a new look, how big a deal is a 10% speedbump and 64 bit chips that IMACS for Chrissakes have already had for a week?
Peace
Jul 30, 12:23 PM
The latest iPod firmware has references to phone signal strength etc.
Apple purchased a very large data center capable of uplink/downlink communications a few months ago.
http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1557
Oppenheimer alluded to Apple working on a cell phone in the Q3 conference call.
I'd say the evidence is there for a "type" of cell phone coming soon from Apple.
Apple purchased a very large data center capable of uplink/downlink communications a few months ago.
http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1557
Oppenheimer alluded to Apple working on a cell phone in the Q3 conference call.
I'd say the evidence is there for a "type" of cell phone coming soon from Apple.
joeboy_45101
Jul 29, 10:03 PM
This sounds cool. Initially, though; I was kind of turned off by the idea of Apple doing a cellphone.
Unfortunately, I'm pulled back into thinking, "What could Apple do with phones that hasn't already been done." Small, light, photos, video, internet, music, games, personal organization? Most of this is pretty well covered with the current offerings. So what is going to be the selling point here? Is it going to be expensive or affordable? Is it going to be full-featured or bare bones?
Unfortunately, I'm pulled back into thinking, "What could Apple do with phones that hasn't already been done." Small, light, photos, video, internet, music, games, personal organization? Most of this is pretty well covered with the current offerings. So what is going to be the selling point here? Is it going to be expensive or affordable? Is it going to be full-featured or bare bones?
macenforcer
Aug 7, 05:19 PM
Thanks for raising the noise question. My thoughts exactly. Since there wasn't a case redesign, I suspect the noise specs to be similar to G5.
Anyone?
No way. The G5s main problem was the fan that cooled the HDs and the main motherboard chipset, it wasn't the cpu fans that were loud. This machine will be much quiter.
These new xeons require 1/4 the watts.
Anyone?
No way. The G5s main problem was the fan that cooled the HDs and the main motherboard chipset, it wasn't the cpu fans that were loud. This machine will be much quiter.
These new xeons require 1/4 the watts.
MrSmith
Mar 28, 10:12 AM
Sort of relieved no iPhone 5 announcements, Im firmly bogged down into a 2 year contract.
My 2-year contract finishes next month and my 3G is almost inoperative. No way I want to buy into the antenna problems with a 4. Glad you're happy though.
My 2-year contract finishes next month and my 3G is almost inoperative. No way I want to buy into the antenna problems with a 4. Glad you're happy though.
maccompaq
Jan 5, 04:20 PM
With full respect for your decisions, if you'll pardon me, I think that's a little bit crackers. :D
How do you know if your machine isn't part of a botnet? Have you eschewed only AV and simply subsist on your router f/wall and software firewall? Only run as user not admin? None of the above? Something else?
I have a bunch of Windows and Mac computers in my house. Everything is backed up onto every computer. If I should ever get a virus, I would just go to another computer. The infected computer would be reformatted later without a worry about losing anything.
I would know immediately if ever infected by a botnet.
How do you know if your machine isn't part of a botnet? Have you eschewed only AV and simply subsist on your router f/wall and software firewall? Only run as user not admin? None of the above? Something else?
I have a bunch of Windows and Mac computers in my house. Everything is backed up onto every computer. If I should ever get a virus, I would just go to another computer. The infected computer would be reformatted later without a worry about losing anything.
I would know immediately if ever infected by a botnet.
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.)
081440
Aug 11, 06:35 PM
And please, for the love of all things holy, retire the Powerbook G5 "joke". It never was funny and it certainly isn't funny now.
THANK YOU!! I COMPLETELY AGREE!!!! :D
THANK YOU!! I COMPLETELY AGREE!!!! :D
CaryMacGuy
May 7, 01:19 PM
It would make sense for this to be free. Google syncs with Gmail, calendar, etc for free. I think Microsoft is creating an companion internet service for WiMo. If Apple made MobileMe free, it would make its adoption explode. If MobileMe was free, I could see myself getting a me.com email address.
nbs2
Nov 22, 12:40 PM
I couldn't agree more. I still think a cell phone should be, first and foremost, a decent telephone! If it stops working after I drop it on carpet, or the person at the other end sounds like they are taking through a "tin can", or if the reception "goes down more frequently than a five dollar hooker" and it drops calls, I don't really give a rat's ass about a built in camera, video, music player, fancy ringers, or any of the other "bells and whistles" that seem to be a marketing priority these days. Then there's the whole battery life issue. I don't want to caught off guard with a dead phone late one night because I happened to be in the mood for music that day and used the phone as a music player all day. Give me a good telephone, and decent features that enhance that function (BT hands free, sync, etc.) first. Then worry about the other gimmicks.
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?
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?
LucasG
Apr 26, 02:26 PM
Unfortunately, only 25% of the US market agrees with you. ;)
Who cares? After all it's just personal choice. Whether you use iPhone or Android, it's your choice and nobody else but yours.
Who cares? After all it's just personal choice. Whether you use iPhone or Android, it's your choice and nobody else but yours.
Xtremehkr
Apr 7, 09:35 AM
RIM was the smartphone market for a brief period of time, they really should be doing better than what they are right now.
RIM didn't have any vision, though, and were eclipsed by Apple and Google.
I owned a BB Storm and it was a piece of junk, the Torch fell flat and now the Playbook has been delayed.
I wonder who is going to buy RIM out, they are in desperate need of a hit product. RIM needs a halo product as badly as Apple did before the iPod came out.
RIM didn't have any vision, though, and were eclipsed by Apple and Google.
I owned a BB Storm and it was a piece of junk, the Torch fell flat and now the Playbook has been delayed.
I wonder who is going to buy RIM out, they are in desperate need of a hit product. RIM needs a halo product as badly as Apple did before the iPod came out.
mr.steevo
Nov 26, 12:53 PM
If I could just have a Mac tablet that I could type and write notes on for class, I'd be in heaven :)
I used this (http://www.samsclub.com/shopping/navigate.do?dest=5&item=143780) in class to write my notes on. Very durable (I dropped it once and was still able to use it!), and I haven't had a problem with it crapping out on me when I needed it. Storage space is limited but I would buy another one in a heartbeat.
;)
s.
I used this (http://www.samsclub.com/shopping/navigate.do?dest=5&item=143780) in class to write my notes on. Very durable (I dropped it once and was still able to use it!), and I haven't had a problem with it crapping out on me when I needed it. Storage space is limited but I would buy another one in a heartbeat.
;)
s.
iBug2
May 4, 03:43 PM
what makes you think that you can copy it to a USB drive or disc? I have disc for Tiger, Leopard, and Snow Leopard. None of those disc can be copied, some of them can only be used on their original machine (or the exact model). the past 3 OSes can't be copied, and so far there's nothing to suggest we can just make backup copies of Lion.
All OS's can be copied. I copied all my Leopard Tiger original discs without any issues. Also the current Lion previews can be copied as many times as you want to.
All OS's can be copied. I copied all my Leopard Tiger original discs without any issues. Also the current Lion previews can be copied as many times as you want to.
GregA
Jul 31, 12:51 AM
Just wondering - what would happen if Apple allowed Airport Extreme/Express etc (AND every Mac which has Wireless) to become a hub that anyone with a .Mac account could log in to and use?
Basically, as a Mac owner with a wireless card, you could elect to share your bandwidth for $5/GB (or something appropriate depending on country). Any .Mac subscriber could use your connection, and it would credit your .Mac account (redeemable on .Mac fees, roaming onto other people's networks, iTMS, or Apple store).
How much coverage would you get through this? Would it be legal?
Basically, as a Mac owner with a wireless card, you could elect to share your bandwidth for $5/GB (or something appropriate depending on country). Any .Mac subscriber could use your connection, and it would credit your .Mac account (redeemable on .Mac fees, roaming onto other people's networks, iTMS, or Apple store).
How much coverage would you get through this? Would it be legal?
ElGringo
Aug 7, 04:01 PM
You know, I bought a dual core 2.0 G5 PowerMac a bit back for the ability to expand as needed. Since then I have added a second hard drive and NOT ONE PCIe card. Why? Because NO ONE out there makes a PCIe USB expansion card that is compatible with Deep Sleep Mode.
Maybe the new Mac Pro's will usher in some better options in this area. I don't want hubs and the subsequent extra wall warts that go with it. I want more USB prots, not more wall warts.
How long has PCIe been around in the PowerMac's and now Mac Pro's and there still isn't a solution for this????
Anyway, a bit of a sidetrack, but the new Mac Pro's do look sweet!!
Maybe the new Mac Pro's will usher in some better options in this area. I don't want hubs and the subsequent extra wall warts that go with it. I want more USB prots, not more wall warts.
How long has PCIe been around in the PowerMac's and now Mac Pro's and there still isn't a solution for this????
Anyway, a bit of a sidetrack, but the new Mac Pro's do look sweet!!
BlizzardBomb
Aug 12, 02:02 PM
But then it wouldn't be a Mac Mini, now would it?
(My first MR post. Ever.)
Well most people attach those hard drive thingies on the bottom, which makes it a little taller anyway.
Oh and welcome to MacRumors. Enjoy your stay.
(My first MR post. Ever.)
Well most people attach those hard drive thingies on the bottom, which makes it a little taller anyway.
Oh and welcome to MacRumors. Enjoy your stay.