iphone3gs16gb
Apr 12, 10:25 AM
What a bunch on whining individuals you are.
"this belongs on page 2"
"enough of this, page 2"
Yeah, yeah, all we know now is that it's becoming increasingly clear that the next generation iPhone is scheduled for a September release, end of story
stop whining geez :rolleyes:
"this belongs on page 2"
"enough of this, page 2"
Yeah, yeah, all we know now is that it's becoming increasingly clear that the next generation iPhone is scheduled for a September release, end of story
stop whining geez :rolleyes:
iSax1234
Mar 31, 10:46 AM
Looks ok, I don't mind it. I really don't care that much about looks more than functionality. I want something more like Outlook. On an exchange server Outlook does wonders. Email, calender, and contacts all unified in one program that offers great communication with the universal address book on the server.
roosta
Apr 15, 06:00 PM
Merlot - I like it!
maybe osx 11 can be named after whales. as each release gets more and more bloated the name would reflect that - os 11 narwhal, os 11.9 blue. not sure how marketing's going to handle sperm though.
maybe osx 11 can be named after whales. as each release gets more and more bloated the name would reflect that - os 11 narwhal, os 11.9 blue. not sure how marketing's going to handle sperm though.
Digital Skunk
May 3, 09:15 AM
It annoys me too but it works out pretty well for Apple and I'd much rather pay extra for the i7 than not have the option at all. Look at the latest MBPs compared to the previous ones, Apple bumped the GPUs up significantly but charged $200 more and yet everyone is happy.
True, but I've always had the sense that MBP owners are just used to paying a lot more for a machine than most everyone else.
I strongly suggest against a refurbished model of older revisions. It is similar to purchasing a Core 2 model. The base 21.5" Sandy Bridge once it hits refurb would be tempting at ~$999.
Agreed about the Core2 models, but I still think it would depend on the price of the refurbed. There's a 3.33GHz core 2 duo on there for $1040, and a 3.06GHz Core i3 for $930; same GPU different HDD size. The i3 would be the better choice if one weren't able to get the extra $200 or so for a new model.
This is the first worthwhile iMac solely based on the stillborn potential of Thunderbolt and the quad on the base models. It only took 5 years.
QFT. My initial post in this thread mentioned the Old Skool Apple because at the very least we've got iMacs that don't offer 80% laptop parts with a nice screen. I'd say we are at 40% laptop parts now.
True, but I've always had the sense that MBP owners are just used to paying a lot more for a machine than most everyone else.
I strongly suggest against a refurbished model of older revisions. It is similar to purchasing a Core 2 model. The base 21.5" Sandy Bridge once it hits refurb would be tempting at ~$999.
Agreed about the Core2 models, but I still think it would depend on the price of the refurbed. There's a 3.33GHz core 2 duo on there for $1040, and a 3.06GHz Core i3 for $930; same GPU different HDD size. The i3 would be the better choice if one weren't able to get the extra $200 or so for a new model.
This is the first worthwhile iMac solely based on the stillborn potential of Thunderbolt and the quad on the base models. It only took 5 years.
QFT. My initial post in this thread mentioned the Old Skool Apple because at the very least we've got iMacs that don't offer 80% laptop parts with a nice screen. I'd say we are at 40% laptop parts now.
FireStar
Nov 1, 08:28 PM
Please. :)
http://nexus404.com/Blog/wp-content/uploads2/2010/09/ipod-touch-1.jpg
http://nexus404.com/Blog/wp-content/uploads2/2010/09/ipod-touch-1.jpg
TuffLuffJimmy
Apr 25, 12:11 AM
I have seen some transgenders, and I have nothing to say to them.
That's pretty messed up. Just because you feel uncomfortable with someone who doesn't identify as their birth gender doesn't mean they're somehow not worth your conversation.
Is it because of your religion? Christian perhaps? I wonder if Jesus would have been so dismissive of trans people too.
That's pretty messed up. Just because you feel uncomfortable with someone who doesn't identify as their birth gender doesn't mean they're somehow not worth your conversation.
Is it because of your religion? Christian perhaps? I wonder if Jesus would have been so dismissive of trans people too.
chrmjenkins
Apr 28, 12:19 PM
Ouch, Appleguy. I believe you may have made our wolfish friend angry. Now we avenge you.
eldiablojoe
Still night. The death was because of a kamikaze attack.
eldiablojoe
Still night. The death was because of a kamikaze attack.
dashiel
Apr 23, 06:18 PM
Why?
I thought AT&T's buyout means T-Mobile is going bye-bye?
408 area code, that means cali. is that steve jobs' personal number? :P
The T-Mobile deal isn't a for sure thing. Likely, but the FTC could block it. Also, as the article states T-Mobile's towers use a different frequencies.
I thought AT&T's buyout means T-Mobile is going bye-bye?
408 area code, that means cali. is that steve jobs' personal number? :P
The T-Mobile deal isn't a for sure thing. Likely, but the FTC could block it. Also, as the article states T-Mobile's towers use a different frequencies.
godrifle
Mar 31, 10:50 AM
Just what I wanted to see.
Bye Bye UI Guidelines.
This is going to be huge for Mac OS X. UI Guidelines were great but could stagnant the look. The OS needs to look rich in colour.
Very happy with the change and the development.
Just my 2 cents.
Dear God! Eliminate the consistency that UI guidelines create and usability goes out the window. Net result - Mac OS X becomes no different than Window.
I'm hoping these are red herrings by Apple, because these are just ass ugly.
Bye Bye UI Guidelines.
This is going to be huge for Mac OS X. UI Guidelines were great but could stagnant the look. The OS needs to look rich in colour.
Very happy with the change and the development.
Just my 2 cents.
Dear God! Eliminate the consistency that UI guidelines create and usability goes out the window. Net result - Mac OS X becomes no different than Window.
I'm hoping these are red herrings by Apple, because these are just ass ugly.
unobtainium
Apr 14, 03:03 AM
Imac touch with ios apps as widgets? Imagine cleaning fingerprint smudges off a 27" iMac display. I hope Apple doesn't go there, and I don't think they will.
zildjansg
Nov 2, 03:26 AM
Canon 200mm f/2?
Me too.
Canon EF 300mm f2.8L USM IS:D
Me too.
Canon EF 300mm f2.8L USM IS:D
duck33
Apr 14, 01:29 PM
Can anyone else confirm this? How about on iPad?
I can confirm this. I have had the Mulititasking Gestures on my iPad(1) and I'm running 4.3.
I can confirm this. I have had the Mulititasking Gestures on my iPad(1) and I'm running 4.3.
sccaldwell
Oct 24, 01:37 PM
If I own a PC and I want to run Vista, why would I want to also run Vista, on the same machine, in a virtual environment?
For Mac users, why would we want to install Vista-(via BootCamp) and then also use it under virtualization?
More importantly, for Mac users, why would we *want* to run Vista at all? :D Oh, you *have* to for some reason? Sorry to hear that...very unfortunate. :p
Craig
For Mac users, why would we want to install Vista-(via BootCamp) and then also use it under virtualization?
More importantly, for Mac users, why would we *want* to run Vista at all? :D Oh, you *have* to for some reason? Sorry to hear that...very unfortunate. :p
Craig
BornAgainMac
Mar 31, 01:21 PM
Microsoft Bob. No wait.... Apple Steve.
sparkomatic
Mar 11, 07:33 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
As you get closer, there's a person with a box giving out a resevation card.
Good luck to everyone waiting!
As you get closer, there's a person with a box giving out a resevation card.
Good luck to everyone waiting!
MagnusVonMagnum
Nov 20, 10:40 AM
If you don't address those very good reasons, your argument won't be very convincing. We do not want the CPU suck, the identity leaking, the UI inconsistencies, and the very real risk of "zero day" Adobe bugs.
Whom am I trying to convince? Illogical and irrational people who worship Steve Jobs and hate what he hates? Such people will not care or listen to any form of reason. That's why the word fanatic is in fanboy. No, I talk about an option to turn Flash on or off at will and you find it offensive to even offer an option. That is irrational at best.
Everything you fear would be avoided if someone just turned Flash OFF (or it could default to off and have to be turned on). I've said since the first post the word OPTION. You don't seem to comprehend that word or understand why those of us that would want the choice of having Flash are not asking you to give up anything in the process. You could always turn it off if it were present. We cannot turn it on if it's not present.
In other words, you are not competent to carry on a rational discussion. You're just here to vent.
No, I just don't see any point in trying to carry on a logical, rational discussion with someone whose "argument" is based purely on emotion. If it weren't, you wouldn't object to an option for those of us that don't agree with Steve Jobs point of view because an option satisfies all your arguments against having Flash because you can always just leave it OFF. It cannot do harm if it's off no matter how paranoid you may become about having it on your device.
Many millions of people have Flash installed on their Macs (let alone those using Windows and Linux) and they could remove it. They know that if they do, some web sites will cease to function properly and thus they leave it on. The security concerns you mentioned will be addressed as all security bugs are in both OSX and Windows.
Users of those 120M+ devices don't have to hope. They are already free of Flash!
Free of Flash? You say that in a tone that sounds like they're free of slavery or something. No, what they're free of is the ability to access millions of web sites that require Flash to view them or much of their content and I do not see that as a good thing. But my point of view doesn't require you to see it. I said from the first post I wanted an option to use Flash. You could still choose to turn it off if it were there. I cannot turn on what is not present nor should I have to buy some absurd 3rd party converter that requires their web site to be running to use it.
The analogy makes no sense. Nobody is forcing you to use any Apple product.
And so that makes it OK for him to behave as he does? A lot of us like Apple products, but we would like them a lot better if Steve would just stick to making the products unfettered instead of trying to force his opinions and world view on people in the process. He doesn't like Flash so he decides for everyone they should not use Flash. What if Steve decided iOS shall no longer support MP3 files, only AAC? I suppose you would accept that as OK too? Update iOS and your MP3s no longer function. Yes, that would be just wonderful if they did that. After all, AAC is superior to MP3, so why should Apple support a legacy inferior heavily pirated format? By your logic, they should not.
If you really want the "full web experience" of zero-day Adobe bugs, get an Android phone. Note: Android phones were vulnerable to the last zero-day Adobe bug. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt)
I don't want a phone period guy. I only want and use an iPod Touch. Is there an Android iPod Touch? Android didn't exist when Apple made the claims of accessing the full Internet either and it doesn't make that any less a lie.
The fact that I can't catch zero-day Adobe attacks on my iPhone is a great reason to praise Apple's decision.
You act as if Apple has no vulnerabilities to attack. That is extremely naive to the point of emotionalism once again. In fact it's just the opposite. Apple's security is rated as bad compared to Windows and only the fact that there are so few Mac users compared to Windows has saved it thus far. As the popularity of iOS devices has exploded, it's inevitable that it will start attracting malware. It's only a matter of time. Will you wish you never bought an iPhone on that day or will you recognize that companies simply have to find and patch vulnerabilities. Apple has patched numerous security flaws in OSX over the years. Should we plug our ears and say there is no such thing?
Do tell: what exact sites are you talking about? What exact legacy flash applications are running on those sites to which you can find no substitute?
A quick search (you do know how to do that don't you?) reveals offhand a few example sites that don't use HTML5 video (which could and may in the future, but that doesn't help someone today):
Gametrailers
GiantBomb
Vimeo
Playstation Blog
Stiq of Joy
Engadget
Try some of these effects on this site this with HTML5:
http://superior-web-solutions.com/
Maybe read this article on Flash. Most HTML5 is just a video player. Flash isn't just a video player and it didn't even start as one.
http://www.andrewgreig.com/2010/06/html5-is-not-a-flash-replacement-and-shouldnt-be-seen-that-way/
Perhaps you want an open standard? So when does Apple stop requiring Quicktime on their web sites? :rolleyes:
Nobody is holding a gun to your head. Nobody is holding you hostage.
If you don't like the choices that Apple made, then ditch your iOS device and get an Android. Simple.
No, they're just boring me to death with emotional arguments why everyone should either worship Steve Jobs or leave the platform and get an Android instead similar to the "love OSX or leave it" arguments the fanboys regularly produce.
This is the first little lie in your rant. The iOS users don't find it inconvenient. If Flash were so damn important to them, they would have bought some device that could run Flash.
The fact that you think my statement is a "lie" based on a subjective opinion tells me you cannot even tell fact from fiction let alone lies from opinions. Trying to see someone else's point of view is completely foreign to you. You view the world through tinted lenses. What you say is akin to if you don't like something about OSX, go buy a Windows machine, as if there aren't any compromises along the way on that platform either (not to mention having to replace possibly thousands and thousands of dollars worth of software for a given platform to do so). Not liking something about a given platform and wanting to change it doesn't mean another platform is more viable in ALL areas or that a person may wish to spend a lot of money to make that change just because of that one issue. Perhaps you'd like to send me a free Android phone to replace my aging 1st Gen iPod Touch that I bought before Android even existed? I'd happily consider such an offer. Of course I'll need replacement apps as well.
The people who bought those 120M+ devices disagree with you.
You seem to forge that I and others that actually want Flash are part of those people dude. Get over yourself. Just because you don't like Flash doesn't mean the rest of us have hatred for it. Some of us simply don't like our iPhones, iPads and iPod Touches crippled for no reason. Besides, how you try to turn my initial argument that I'd prefer to see an option to use Flash for those of us that want it rather than no option into this flipping crusade against all things Apple and Flash alike is beyond me. You are making mountains out of mole hills and lies out of opinions. For what? I can't make you see things the way I see them. I never wanted to try. That's why I said OPTION. But you would deny everyone who wants that option to have it just like Steve Jobs. Steve does it because he's a control freak (he was once ousted from Apple for this very reason). I imagine you do it because you love Apple. Sadly, I actually prefer Steve's reason.
This is the second little lie. Apple did provide a choice: they approved the SkyFire App. They didn't have to do that.
Didn't they? It doesn't violate their rules for an app so how could they not approve it without being outright liars? Oh wait. They have done that before so I can see your point. ;)
Apple has also announced they will approve Flash Apps using Adobe's cross-compiler for iOS. If there actually are crucial Flash apps -- you haven't named a single specific one so far -- the owners of those apps should be able to easily cross-compile their apps for the iOS App Store.
Apple formerly announced they would NOT support it. Why did they change their minds? Could it have something to do with the Justice Department starting an investigation into anti-trust behaviors by Apple policies? Noooo....it couldn't be that. Apple is allowed to single out companies it doesn't like and compete with to just willy-nilly throw specifically into their license agreements.
And that is the third little lie. Flash is a proprietary and legacy platform. It's on the way down now.
I say if you don't have Flash you don't have the full Internet and you call that a "lie" based on the above quote? What freaking UNIVERSE do you live in??????? ROTFLMAO. You cannot tell a statement of fact from an idea in your head that somehow says that the "full internet" doesn't include sites that use "propriety" formats. Come on man. That position not only ignore reality it even invalidiates Apple's own web site as being part of the "full Internet" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You need to try harder. Calling someone a liar when they are obviously stating facts and/or opinions just makes you look immature.
because accusing someone of lying when it's obvious
Even Adobe has acknowledged that a Flash-only choice is a bankrupt strategy (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999). After websites start offering their content with an open standard, you've gotta ask: what exactly is the value in continuing to prop up Flash?
First of all, you are the one that is calling it a "bankrupt strategy". I see nothing in that thread by Adobe that even addresses the matter. Adobe is simply trying to sell products and if they can easily sell more products to Apple users by providing an easy way to convert their hard work Flash sites into HTML5, they are going to do so and laugh all the way to the bank. That in NO WAY invalidates the fact that there are still plenty of Flash only sites out there and plenty of flash uses (e.g. Flash games) that HTML5 is no simple substitute for regardless. Until the Internet is Flash free, there is going to be a need and a will by people to have the option to view Flash.
The mere fact that this Skyfire app has raked in over $1 MILLION in sales already shows just how big that will is. Yet you reject the desire to be able to use Flash web sites as meaningless and unnecessary while the thread title alone proves you wrong.
If your hair is natural lack,
Christina Aguilera Blonde Hair
near-platinum blonde hair
Whom am I trying to convince? Illogical and irrational people who worship Steve Jobs and hate what he hates? Such people will not care or listen to any form of reason. That's why the word fanatic is in fanboy. No, I talk about an option to turn Flash on or off at will and you find it offensive to even offer an option. That is irrational at best.
Everything you fear would be avoided if someone just turned Flash OFF (or it could default to off and have to be turned on). I've said since the first post the word OPTION. You don't seem to comprehend that word or understand why those of us that would want the choice of having Flash are not asking you to give up anything in the process. You could always turn it off if it were present. We cannot turn it on if it's not present.
In other words, you are not competent to carry on a rational discussion. You're just here to vent.
No, I just don't see any point in trying to carry on a logical, rational discussion with someone whose "argument" is based purely on emotion. If it weren't, you wouldn't object to an option for those of us that don't agree with Steve Jobs point of view because an option satisfies all your arguments against having Flash because you can always just leave it OFF. It cannot do harm if it's off no matter how paranoid you may become about having it on your device.
Many millions of people have Flash installed on their Macs (let alone those using Windows and Linux) and they could remove it. They know that if they do, some web sites will cease to function properly and thus they leave it on. The security concerns you mentioned will be addressed as all security bugs are in both OSX and Windows.
Users of those 120M+ devices don't have to hope. They are already free of Flash!
Free of Flash? You say that in a tone that sounds like they're free of slavery or something. No, what they're free of is the ability to access millions of web sites that require Flash to view them or much of their content and I do not see that as a good thing. But my point of view doesn't require you to see it. I said from the first post I wanted an option to use Flash. You could still choose to turn it off if it were there. I cannot turn on what is not present nor should I have to buy some absurd 3rd party converter that requires their web site to be running to use it.
The analogy makes no sense. Nobody is forcing you to use any Apple product.
And so that makes it OK for him to behave as he does? A lot of us like Apple products, but we would like them a lot better if Steve would just stick to making the products unfettered instead of trying to force his opinions and world view on people in the process. He doesn't like Flash so he decides for everyone they should not use Flash. What if Steve decided iOS shall no longer support MP3 files, only AAC? I suppose you would accept that as OK too? Update iOS and your MP3s no longer function. Yes, that would be just wonderful if they did that. After all, AAC is superior to MP3, so why should Apple support a legacy inferior heavily pirated format? By your logic, they should not.
If you really want the "full web experience" of zero-day Adobe bugs, get an Android phone. Note: Android phones were vulnerable to the last zero-day Adobe bug. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt)
I don't want a phone period guy. I only want and use an iPod Touch. Is there an Android iPod Touch? Android didn't exist when Apple made the claims of accessing the full Internet either and it doesn't make that any less a lie.
The fact that I can't catch zero-day Adobe attacks on my iPhone is a great reason to praise Apple's decision.
You act as if Apple has no vulnerabilities to attack. That is extremely naive to the point of emotionalism once again. In fact it's just the opposite. Apple's security is rated as bad compared to Windows and only the fact that there are so few Mac users compared to Windows has saved it thus far. As the popularity of iOS devices has exploded, it's inevitable that it will start attracting malware. It's only a matter of time. Will you wish you never bought an iPhone on that day or will you recognize that companies simply have to find and patch vulnerabilities. Apple has patched numerous security flaws in OSX over the years. Should we plug our ears and say there is no such thing?
Do tell: what exact sites are you talking about? What exact legacy flash applications are running on those sites to which you can find no substitute?
A quick search (you do know how to do that don't you?) reveals offhand a few example sites that don't use HTML5 video (which could and may in the future, but that doesn't help someone today):
Gametrailers
GiantBomb
Vimeo
Playstation Blog
Stiq of Joy
Engadget
Try some of these effects on this site this with HTML5:
http://superior-web-solutions.com/
Maybe read this article on Flash. Most HTML5 is just a video player. Flash isn't just a video player and it didn't even start as one.
http://www.andrewgreig.com/2010/06/html5-is-not-a-flash-replacement-and-shouldnt-be-seen-that-way/
Perhaps you want an open standard? So when does Apple stop requiring Quicktime on their web sites? :rolleyes:
Nobody is holding a gun to your head. Nobody is holding you hostage.
If you don't like the choices that Apple made, then ditch your iOS device and get an Android. Simple.
No, they're just boring me to death with emotional arguments why everyone should either worship Steve Jobs or leave the platform and get an Android instead similar to the "love OSX or leave it" arguments the fanboys regularly produce.
This is the first little lie in your rant. The iOS users don't find it inconvenient. If Flash were so damn important to them, they would have bought some device that could run Flash.
The fact that you think my statement is a "lie" based on a subjective opinion tells me you cannot even tell fact from fiction let alone lies from opinions. Trying to see someone else's point of view is completely foreign to you. You view the world through tinted lenses. What you say is akin to if you don't like something about OSX, go buy a Windows machine, as if there aren't any compromises along the way on that platform either (not to mention having to replace possibly thousands and thousands of dollars worth of software for a given platform to do so). Not liking something about a given platform and wanting to change it doesn't mean another platform is more viable in ALL areas or that a person may wish to spend a lot of money to make that change just because of that one issue. Perhaps you'd like to send me a free Android phone to replace my aging 1st Gen iPod Touch that I bought before Android even existed? I'd happily consider such an offer. Of course I'll need replacement apps as well.
The people who bought those 120M+ devices disagree with you.
You seem to forge that I and others that actually want Flash are part of those people dude. Get over yourself. Just because you don't like Flash doesn't mean the rest of us have hatred for it. Some of us simply don't like our iPhones, iPads and iPod Touches crippled for no reason. Besides, how you try to turn my initial argument that I'd prefer to see an option to use Flash for those of us that want it rather than no option into this flipping crusade against all things Apple and Flash alike is beyond me. You are making mountains out of mole hills and lies out of opinions. For what? I can't make you see things the way I see them. I never wanted to try. That's why I said OPTION. But you would deny everyone who wants that option to have it just like Steve Jobs. Steve does it because he's a control freak (he was once ousted from Apple for this very reason). I imagine you do it because you love Apple. Sadly, I actually prefer Steve's reason.
This is the second little lie. Apple did provide a choice: they approved the SkyFire App. They didn't have to do that.
Didn't they? It doesn't violate their rules for an app so how could they not approve it without being outright liars? Oh wait. They have done that before so I can see your point. ;)
Apple has also announced they will approve Flash Apps using Adobe's cross-compiler for iOS. If there actually are crucial Flash apps -- you haven't named a single specific one so far -- the owners of those apps should be able to easily cross-compile their apps for the iOS App Store.
Apple formerly announced they would NOT support it. Why did they change their minds? Could it have something to do with the Justice Department starting an investigation into anti-trust behaviors by Apple policies? Noooo....it couldn't be that. Apple is allowed to single out companies it doesn't like and compete with to just willy-nilly throw specifically into their license agreements.
And that is the third little lie. Flash is a proprietary and legacy platform. It's on the way down now.
I say if you don't have Flash you don't have the full Internet and you call that a "lie" based on the above quote? What freaking UNIVERSE do you live in??????? ROTFLMAO. You cannot tell a statement of fact from an idea in your head that somehow says that the "full internet" doesn't include sites that use "propriety" formats. Come on man. That position not only ignore reality it even invalidiates Apple's own web site as being part of the "full Internet" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You need to try harder. Calling someone a liar when they are obviously stating facts and/or opinions just makes you look immature.
because accusing someone of lying when it's obvious
Even Adobe has acknowledged that a Flash-only choice is a bankrupt strategy (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999). After websites start offering their content with an open standard, you've gotta ask: what exactly is the value in continuing to prop up Flash?
First of all, you are the one that is calling it a "bankrupt strategy". I see nothing in that thread by Adobe that even addresses the matter. Adobe is simply trying to sell products and if they can easily sell more products to Apple users by providing an easy way to convert their hard work Flash sites into HTML5, they are going to do so and laugh all the way to the bank. That in NO WAY invalidates the fact that there are still plenty of Flash only sites out there and plenty of flash uses (e.g. Flash games) that HTML5 is no simple substitute for regardless. Until the Internet is Flash free, there is going to be a need and a will by people to have the option to view Flash.
The mere fact that this Skyfire app has raked in over $1 MILLION in sales already shows just how big that will is. Yet you reject the desire to be able to use Flash web sites as meaningless and unnecessary while the thread title alone proves you wrong.
gnasher729
Apr 22, 04:14 AM
Even more entertaining is the fact that Apple is so arrogant they fail to realize how stupid they look.
Suing their biggest vendor.
It doesn't get any more stupid than that.
Samsung is so arrogant, they fail to realize how stupid they look.
Ripping off their biggest customer. Then suing their biggest customer.
It doesn't get any more stupid than that.
What is apple complaining about
I think this is a lawsuit its best for everyone to avoid.
Another repost of this picture that was long since debunked. The picture claims that the Samsung F700 was showed first on Cebit 2006. If you google for "Samsung Cebit 2006" and then for "Samsung Cebit 2007", the first finds lots of photos of Samsung phones that look completely different than any iPhone, the second finds a tech website that dug out a link to their own reporting from Cebit 2007 where the F700 was shown as a reply to the iPhone and the LG phone.
Suing their biggest vendor.
It doesn't get any more stupid than that.
Samsung is so arrogant, they fail to realize how stupid they look.
Ripping off their biggest customer. Then suing their biggest customer.
It doesn't get any more stupid than that.
What is apple complaining about
I think this is a lawsuit its best for everyone to avoid.
Another repost of this picture that was long since debunked. The picture claims that the Samsung F700 was showed first on Cebit 2006. If you google for "Samsung Cebit 2006" and then for "Samsung Cebit 2007", the first finds lots of photos of Samsung phones that look completely different than any iPhone, the second finds a tech website that dug out a link to their own reporting from Cebit 2007 where the F700 was shown as a reply to the iPhone and the LG phone.
macjizz
Aug 19, 10:07 PM
Latest Skype beta works quite well. I use a blue-tooth headset with my macbook and the results are really incredible.
Whats happening with iChat, are they getting it to work with MSN Messenger networks like with AOL?
I have just switched to Mac, and it's annoying I cant Video Conference with any MSN Messenger users (MSN Messenger on Mac doesnt support it). iChat is awesome but I have no contacts, lol. Anyone know of any other way, I have tried AdiumX and looked into Jabber.
Whats happening with iChat, are they getting it to work with MSN Messenger networks like with AOL?
I have just switched to Mac, and it's annoying I cant Video Conference with any MSN Messenger users (MSN Messenger on Mac doesnt support it). iChat is awesome but I have no contacts, lol. Anyone know of any other way, I have tried AdiumX and looked into Jabber.
cvaldes
Apr 24, 02:14 AM
A few clarifications that pertain to AT&T/T-Mobile and this story:
* The most valuable thing T-Mobile has is it's *spectrum*. The network itself, while quite valuable, isn't the key here at all. Oh, it's a factor, but it's not the reason why the Death Star is after it.
* T-Mobile has not been bought. There's just a stated intent for AT&T to buy T-mobile. The purchase process will take many months, and there are many regulatory hurdles to overcome. Since this will mean reducing the number of national (or near national) carriers, it will get heavy scrutiny, and there's more than a small chance that the deal will be rejected, or come with so many conditions that AT&T will withdraw the offer.
* Between now and the actual purchase, the companies can do some exploratory work with each other but they cannot operate in any way as if the deal has already taken place. AT&T cannot ask APPL to test the iPhone at T-Mobile bands.
There are probably some ways around the last bullet (called "gun jumping") but with a deal with this level of scrutiny, nothing is going to happen which jeopardizes the deal.
T-Mobile USA has spectrum, but also cell towers. AT&T's can benefit from the short term from cell tower access. Spectrum will come later, after an orderly migration of current T-Mobile USA customers using devices that access the AWS band.
It is highly likely that Apple has been testing devices on a variety of carriers, many of them who are unofficial/unannounced. It is likely that this T-Mobile testing unit is such a device.
Lastly, APPL is the stock symbol for Appel Petroleum. The stock symbol for Apple Inc. is AAPL.
Frankly, you shouldn't use stock symbols to talk about a company, unless you are specifically referring to shares. Only dorks do that. It's the same as using an airport code to talk about a city. San Francisco isn't SFO. Los Angeles isn't LAX. Portland isn't PDX. Paris isn't CDG.
* The most valuable thing T-Mobile has is it's *spectrum*. The network itself, while quite valuable, isn't the key here at all. Oh, it's a factor, but it's not the reason why the Death Star is after it.
* T-Mobile has not been bought. There's just a stated intent for AT&T to buy T-mobile. The purchase process will take many months, and there are many regulatory hurdles to overcome. Since this will mean reducing the number of national (or near national) carriers, it will get heavy scrutiny, and there's more than a small chance that the deal will be rejected, or come with so many conditions that AT&T will withdraw the offer.
* Between now and the actual purchase, the companies can do some exploratory work with each other but they cannot operate in any way as if the deal has already taken place. AT&T cannot ask APPL to test the iPhone at T-Mobile bands.
There are probably some ways around the last bullet (called "gun jumping") but with a deal with this level of scrutiny, nothing is going to happen which jeopardizes the deal.
T-Mobile USA has spectrum, but also cell towers. AT&T's can benefit from the short term from cell tower access. Spectrum will come later, after an orderly migration of current T-Mobile USA customers using devices that access the AWS band.
It is highly likely that Apple has been testing devices on a variety of carriers, many of them who are unofficial/unannounced. It is likely that this T-Mobile testing unit is such a device.
Lastly, APPL is the stock symbol for Appel Petroleum. The stock symbol for Apple Inc. is AAPL.
Frankly, you shouldn't use stock symbols to talk about a company, unless you are specifically referring to shares. Only dorks do that. It's the same as using an airport code to talk about a city. San Francisco isn't SFO. Los Angeles isn't LAX. Portland isn't PDX. Paris isn't CDG.
rayz
Aug 1, 10:54 AM
I only clarified because it didn't seem like you got it. If you did, then my apologies.
No problem
As for the time it took Apple to create a stable version I disagree...the first desktop version that was available came out in March 2001. I would say that Jaguar was the first completely stable version, which came out in August 2002. Even if you disagree my PowerBook has been completely stable since I got it (it shipped with 10.2.7) in September 2003. Just over two years. My XP boxes have been far less stable.
Well, I actually didn't have a problem with any version of XP, even before I had installed XP2. The first releases of OSX were pretty hellish for me. Panther was fine; then I installed Tiger and I was back in beta land, which is when I decided to move the business-related stuff back to XP and just do the fun stuff on OSX. Fortunately Apple released a fix a few weeks after they released Tiger.
Also, Apple charges because they offer new things to the operating system, not just stability fixes. OS X updates are also cheaper.
Well, I don't think they've really done that much. They've mashed a few extra look and feels into the UI, added dashboard (and I'm not even sure they invented that), Automator (wich I really should try out). Apart from that, the OS is pretty much the same as it was when it was released (though a lot more stable obviously).
It's an excellent piece of work, but it certainly should be cheaper because when you get right down to it, they didn't actually have to write it from scratch.
Timepass,
It's still called the Blue Screen of Death. If OS X had one, it'd be called the same thing. The point is that it's Blue, not that it's caused by .dll errors or incorrect memory addressing.
Er ... OSX does have one, but it appear to be black (http://www.applematters.com/index.php/section/comments/ask-apple-matters-os-x-crashes-afterall/) ....
No problem
As for the time it took Apple to create a stable version I disagree...the first desktop version that was available came out in March 2001. I would say that Jaguar was the first completely stable version, which came out in August 2002. Even if you disagree my PowerBook has been completely stable since I got it (it shipped with 10.2.7) in September 2003. Just over two years. My XP boxes have been far less stable.
Well, I actually didn't have a problem with any version of XP, even before I had installed XP2. The first releases of OSX were pretty hellish for me. Panther was fine; then I installed Tiger and I was back in beta land, which is when I decided to move the business-related stuff back to XP and just do the fun stuff on OSX. Fortunately Apple released a fix a few weeks after they released Tiger.
Also, Apple charges because they offer new things to the operating system, not just stability fixes. OS X updates are also cheaper.
Well, I don't think they've really done that much. They've mashed a few extra look and feels into the UI, added dashboard (and I'm not even sure they invented that), Automator (wich I really should try out). Apart from that, the OS is pretty much the same as it was when it was released (though a lot more stable obviously).
It's an excellent piece of work, but it certainly should be cheaper because when you get right down to it, they didn't actually have to write it from scratch.
Timepass,
It's still called the Blue Screen of Death. If OS X had one, it'd be called the same thing. The point is that it's Blue, not that it's caused by .dll errors or incorrect memory addressing.
Er ... OSX does have one, but it appear to be black (http://www.applematters.com/index.php/section/comments/ask-apple-matters-os-x-crashes-afterall/) ....
fyrefly
Apr 18, 01:19 PM
The real question is - will the back lit keyboard be reintroduced? I sure hope so. Couldn't care less about gaming but I want to see what I type in a meeting room (and don't get started with the whole "learn to type" BS)...:rolleyes:
+1 - If the next Rev puts the BL Keyboard back in, I'll be first in line.
While these Sandy Bridge processors are considerably faster in lab benchmarks, they offer no discernible real-world improvement for most users. Having used a MacBook Pro with a C2D and then one of the new Sandy Bridge, I couldn't tell the difference.
Depends on what you were doing. If you're just surfing and Youtube and Facebook, then of course the Core2Duo won't matter vs. the i5.
But if you do anything CPU intensive... convert a FLV to an MP4 to use on your iPad, etc... the i6 will smoke the C2D.
I am exactly one of those people. I wanted a light laptop that I could game on occasionally while on travel. There is ZERO chance I would have bought an apple if it wasn't for the Air's portability and gaming potential. Hopefully I'll get many years use out of my 13" Ultimate.. but if Apple cripples the Air from a GPU perspective, I'll go back to Windows in a heartbeat on my next laptop purchase.
These are the comments I least understand.
Apple has basically two choices:
1. Update the MBA sometime in 2010 with SB LV/ULV chips. The CPU will boost, but the Graphics will take a hit.
2. Leave the MBA as a C2D/320M machine for a total of ~18 months till the right Ivy Bridge chips come out. That IGP should be almost equal to the 320M, but I there'll be much better chips than the 320M in early 2012, so I bet all the people whining about the SB IGP will be saying the same stuff about the Ivy IGP.
But let me get this straight: You own a MBA right now. It's got a 320m chip in it that gives you jollies and plays your games. So if Apple was to leave the MBA stagnant for a year and a half, and then update to Ivy Bridge, you'd be happy, etc... but if Apple updated to SB in the middle of that cycle, you'd be pissed, throw you current laptop in the garbage and get a Windows Lappy?
I'm not super-keen on a SB MBA either (unless it has the aforementioned BL Keyboard), but here's a message to all the SB Haters: Apple releasing a SB update to spur Back to School or Holiday Sales in no way invalidates your current MBA. It's not like all the 2010-era MBAs will suddenly explode into a puff of smoke forcing you to use the SB IGP you seemingly hate so much. You can keep using the 320m until the Ivy Bridge MBA comes out in 2012.
What about the heat? MBP are too hot and not in a nice way.
The 2011 MBPs all added 10W to their TDP while keeping the same form factor. That's why there's heat issues across the board. The chips we're talking about in this thread are 17W chips - that's the same or less than the current TDP on the LV9400/9600+320M which should keep the heat issues at bay.
+1 - If the next Rev puts the BL Keyboard back in, I'll be first in line.
While these Sandy Bridge processors are considerably faster in lab benchmarks, they offer no discernible real-world improvement for most users. Having used a MacBook Pro with a C2D and then one of the new Sandy Bridge, I couldn't tell the difference.
Depends on what you were doing. If you're just surfing and Youtube and Facebook, then of course the Core2Duo won't matter vs. the i5.
But if you do anything CPU intensive... convert a FLV to an MP4 to use on your iPad, etc... the i6 will smoke the C2D.
I am exactly one of those people. I wanted a light laptop that I could game on occasionally while on travel. There is ZERO chance I would have bought an apple if it wasn't for the Air's portability and gaming potential. Hopefully I'll get many years use out of my 13" Ultimate.. but if Apple cripples the Air from a GPU perspective, I'll go back to Windows in a heartbeat on my next laptop purchase.
These are the comments I least understand.
Apple has basically two choices:
1. Update the MBA sometime in 2010 with SB LV/ULV chips. The CPU will boost, but the Graphics will take a hit.
2. Leave the MBA as a C2D/320M machine for a total of ~18 months till the right Ivy Bridge chips come out. That IGP should be almost equal to the 320M, but I there'll be much better chips than the 320M in early 2012, so I bet all the people whining about the SB IGP will be saying the same stuff about the Ivy IGP.
But let me get this straight: You own a MBA right now. It's got a 320m chip in it that gives you jollies and plays your games. So if Apple was to leave the MBA stagnant for a year and a half, and then update to Ivy Bridge, you'd be happy, etc... but if Apple updated to SB in the middle of that cycle, you'd be pissed, throw you current laptop in the garbage and get a Windows Lappy?
I'm not super-keen on a SB MBA either (unless it has the aforementioned BL Keyboard), but here's a message to all the SB Haters: Apple releasing a SB update to spur Back to School or Holiday Sales in no way invalidates your current MBA. It's not like all the 2010-era MBAs will suddenly explode into a puff of smoke forcing you to use the SB IGP you seemingly hate so much. You can keep using the 320m until the Ivy Bridge MBA comes out in 2012.
What about the heat? MBP are too hot and not in a nice way.
The 2011 MBPs all added 10W to their TDP while keeping the same form factor. That's why there's heat issues across the board. The chips we're talking about in this thread are 17W chips - that's the same or less than the current TDP on the LV9400/9600+320M which should keep the heat issues at bay.
nick004
Oct 24, 08:12 AM
Whats the shipping times?
kirk26
Apr 16, 01:58 PM
I love my AT&T iPhone 4 and 3GS. On the iPhone 4, upgrading to 4.3.1 was flawless with no problems. The 3GS started having battery drain. Within 6 hours, it would be at 60% with just a bit of usage. I would usually be at 60% after 24 hours. I downgraded to 4.1 where I was before. Nothing on 4.3.1 was worth upgrading to. I don't have a supported printer for air printing and for airshare, the only thing I can share back and forth to is my MBP.
Any battery problems on this latest update?
I have had a flawless experience with AT&T over the past few years and will remain with the next iPhone.
No issues with any of those updates on AT&T.
Any battery problems on this latest update?
I have had a flawless experience with AT&T over the past few years and will remain with the next iPhone.
No issues with any of those updates on AT&T.
iStudentUK
May 3, 07:35 AM
But the UK and US stores are still down for me! Is somewhere up yet?
EDIT- ok, the iMac page is up.
EDIT- ok, the iMac page is up.