mabaker
Apr 16, 08:26 AM
Aw, I almost feel sorry for Google not trying to compete with Apple with their own ideas but blatantly copying them. Pathetic.
GeoffRuth
Oct 19, 11:29 AM
Why on earth would anyone mark this as negative, unless they were a troll?
CPTMONK
Sep 12, 08:14 AM
any chance of the MBP being updated!?
shen
Oct 19, 04:50 PM
I'm sure you could -- go ahead, try me. :)
With each and every release of a new OS (going back beyond Windows), Microsoft has made hyperbolic claims about how good it was going to be. As anyone who's followed this for a while knows, Microsoft's claims rarely live up to reality. The fact is, a lot of people never even bothered to get onto the XP bandwagon. Do you think they're going to be excited about Vista? Unfortunately for Microsoft, their "good enough" philosophy also works for a lot of their customers. They're used to not being motivated by newer and theoretically better. As you admit, the first version of Vista is going to be a dog, just as the first versions of 95, 98 and XP were. People do learn that the risks can outweigh the benefits. My attitude detector reports that hardly anybody cares about Vista.
All that being said, Microsoft will sell a zillion copies of Vista. Most of those will be through the OEM pipeline. The OEMs will buy it because they don't have a choice. This is how each and every version of Windows has become a "success." It's Microsoft's dirty little secret.
vista has zero buzz. i have been in this industry for a little too long, and generally a new win OS creates three specific attitudes in people:
1) the gamers/geeks "this will be the greatest thing ever! have you seen all the cool (insert useless feature here) and can you imagine what games will be able to do on this thing?!?"
2) the average person "i don't know, they say it won't crash, and last week i lost everything when (insert virus name here) hit me and this one is supposed to be better about that stuff."
3) the IT department "we will not be installing any of this platform until it has been tested for compatibility and security for our environment. maybe a year."
so far on Vista, the gamers have made a few "maybe it will be good" comments. the average joe hasn't said word one. the IT depts i know all have said they won't touch it with a 10 meter cattle prod.
but we have a 4th user, the MS diehard who is running the beta and RC stuff and keep trying to work up enthusiasm. and nobody cares.
but as you point out, they WILL sell million of copies. all OEM. if they didn't have their OEM channel so locked down with anti-competative measures, they would have perished after that dog release of windows ME......
With each and every release of a new OS (going back beyond Windows), Microsoft has made hyperbolic claims about how good it was going to be. As anyone who's followed this for a while knows, Microsoft's claims rarely live up to reality. The fact is, a lot of people never even bothered to get onto the XP bandwagon. Do you think they're going to be excited about Vista? Unfortunately for Microsoft, their "good enough" philosophy also works for a lot of their customers. They're used to not being motivated by newer and theoretically better. As you admit, the first version of Vista is going to be a dog, just as the first versions of 95, 98 and XP were. People do learn that the risks can outweigh the benefits. My attitude detector reports that hardly anybody cares about Vista.
All that being said, Microsoft will sell a zillion copies of Vista. Most of those will be through the OEM pipeline. The OEMs will buy it because they don't have a choice. This is how each and every version of Windows has become a "success." It's Microsoft's dirty little secret.
vista has zero buzz. i have been in this industry for a little too long, and generally a new win OS creates three specific attitudes in people:
1) the gamers/geeks "this will be the greatest thing ever! have you seen all the cool (insert useless feature here) and can you imagine what games will be able to do on this thing?!?"
2) the average person "i don't know, they say it won't crash, and last week i lost everything when (insert virus name here) hit me and this one is supposed to be better about that stuff."
3) the IT department "we will not be installing any of this platform until it has been tested for compatibility and security for our environment. maybe a year."
so far on Vista, the gamers have made a few "maybe it will be good" comments. the average joe hasn't said word one. the IT depts i know all have said they won't touch it with a 10 meter cattle prod.
but we have a 4th user, the MS diehard who is running the beta and RC stuff and keep trying to work up enthusiasm. and nobody cares.
but as you point out, they WILL sell million of copies. all OEM. if they didn't have their OEM channel so locked down with anti-competative measures, they would have perished after that dog release of windows ME......
more...
Rodimus Prime
Oct 6, 05:47 PM
My original iPhone was not subsidized and I had to buy it at full price. I chose the device with no qualms about what network I was required to use.
While the iPhone is now subsidized, so are many other phones on many other networks. If only certain networks were doing this to add value to choosing their contracts, I could understand your point of choosing the network before the device. Maybe I'm missing something but I don't understand how this changes my argument that the service is just a commodity while the device is the consumer's primary choice.
I think the biggest problem is when Apple had the chance to change the game by not doing subizided cost they instead give in and just make it worse by forcing a much larger than average subsudize on there phone ($400 vs $250).
Unlock phones puts the network and the phone separete. But as long as it is lock in together it should be choose network first
i get what your sayin, but nah, they can still complain all they want... i dont think it says in the contract be expected to have 30% dropped calls.
people complain not only to relieve themselves, but to eventually get whats right. (complaining on macrumors isnt exactly the best way of going about it, ill give you that)
Well the people who choose the iPhone knowing service are spotty put the label on them as not smart.
Smart people look things over and choose what works best for them. For me I know service is the first thing I look at and that is how I got to ATT (Cingular at the time )for my phone and dump Verizon. Verizon service was crap where I was 6 months out of the year. Sprint and Cingular/ATT were king in that area. I used Sprint for a while and it was great. Switch to ATT because most of my friends and family were on it so M2M.
Either way I choose the service first then pick out the phones from there.
While the iPhone is now subsidized, so are many other phones on many other networks. If only certain networks were doing this to add value to choosing their contracts, I could understand your point of choosing the network before the device. Maybe I'm missing something but I don't understand how this changes my argument that the service is just a commodity while the device is the consumer's primary choice.
I think the biggest problem is when Apple had the chance to change the game by not doing subizided cost they instead give in and just make it worse by forcing a much larger than average subsudize on there phone ($400 vs $250).
Unlock phones puts the network and the phone separete. But as long as it is lock in together it should be choose network first
i get what your sayin, but nah, they can still complain all they want... i dont think it says in the contract be expected to have 30% dropped calls.
people complain not only to relieve themselves, but to eventually get whats right. (complaining on macrumors isnt exactly the best way of going about it, ill give you that)
Well the people who choose the iPhone knowing service are spotty put the label on them as not smart.
Smart people look things over and choose what works best for them. For me I know service is the first thing I look at and that is how I got to ATT (Cingular at the time )for my phone and dump Verizon. Verizon service was crap where I was 6 months out of the year. Sprint and Cingular/ATT were king in that area. I used Sprint for a while and it was great. Switch to ATT because most of my friends and family were on it so M2M.
Either way I choose the service first then pick out the phones from there.
D1G1T4L
Mar 17, 05:06 PM
Love this forum for a good laugh. Obviously the OP was wrong with what he did but love laughing at all the holier than thou responses. :D
more...
CQd44
Apr 16, 06:41 PM
Ahhhh.... dude... the only Apps that don't really get approved are ones that do things that can cause security risks or just plain trying to steal your information.
Yeah, I know... there are also Apps that break the rules and get axed, but for the most part, my first point is true. Any legitimate application can get approved.
If you keep up with Android apps, security is one of the their problems. Open? Yes... risky? Yes.
Didn't that lady's iAd gallery app get rejected?
also, the Google Voice had problems getting out. And different browsers didn't appear for a long while I thought.
Yeah, I know... there are also Apps that break the rules and get axed, but for the most part, my first point is true. Any legitimate application can get approved.
If you keep up with Android apps, security is one of the their problems. Open? Yes... risky? Yes.
Didn't that lady's iAd gallery app get rejected?
also, the Google Voice had problems getting out. And different browsers didn't appear for a long while I thought.
krestfallen
Oct 17, 09:53 AM
I do , I have 140Gb of Photos from my DSLR (and previous digital cameras) putting this on 3 discs rather than 40 discs would be great
I also have 28Gb of music, backing up form itunes to 1 disc rather than 8 would also be useful
word *knock on table*
i got the same problem :-P
I also have 28Gb of music, backing up form itunes to 1 disc rather than 8 would also be useful
word *knock on table*
i got the same problem :-P
more...
J.Bell
Nov 24, 03:37 PM
I was able to use my state/local government discount, with the sales discount, at the online store. Got a 20� imac with 256MB video card for $1460 total.
Lord Blackadder
May 6, 11:02 PM
Me too. I've shot guns and was once shot at, and live with someone who's shot guns and is disfigured by being shot pointblank. Both of us are for gun control.
I'm for gun control as well, but the phrase is so broad as to be almost meaningless. Guns need to be regulated at all times. But the level and manner of regulation are very vexed questions.
I think the notion that fewer guns means less gun crime is true in the absolute sense, but far from the whole story - nor is it linear process.
Guns use to be a everyday needed practical aspect of life (like cars still are today). They no longer are.
Guns have never been a practical everyday tool for the vast majority of humanity. However, a lack of practical utility is not in itself a good reason to ban, criminalize, or otherwise restrict legal access to something. Nor is the fact that something is dangerous by itself grounds for bans or criminalization. We are surrounded by dangerous things every day. Seeking to manage risk is far more effective than a policy of trying to simply legislate it away.
I'm for gun control as well, but the phrase is so broad as to be almost meaningless. Guns need to be regulated at all times. But the level and manner of regulation are very vexed questions.
I think the notion that fewer guns means less gun crime is true in the absolute sense, but far from the whole story - nor is it linear process.
Guns use to be a everyday needed practical aspect of life (like cars still are today). They no longer are.
Guns have never been a practical everyday tool for the vast majority of humanity. However, a lack of practical utility is not in itself a good reason to ban, criminalize, or otherwise restrict legal access to something. Nor is the fact that something is dangerous by itself grounds for bans or criminalization. We are surrounded by dangerous things every day. Seeking to manage risk is far more effective than a policy of trying to simply legislate it away.
more...
eric_n_dfw
Oct 28, 06:00 PM
APPLE, DO NOT MAKE THE SAME MISTAKE AGAIN!!!
Apple made a big mistake not licensing Mac OS 22 years ago allowing clones. Otherwise Mac OS X would be now the mainstream operating system.
Now history repeats. Apple has now the oppotunity to take over and beat Windows. But for that it is absolutely essential to allow Mac OS X to run on ANY PC out there.
Why does Apple make the same mistake?
Even more, if Apple would open Mac OS X completely including Aqua and give it for free as Linux, then Windows would be history in a few months!!!
Apple, are you listening?
I'd love to be able to legally install OS X on a Dell or build-it-myself PC, even it it wasn't $0, but Apple would tank in no time as they make the lion's share of their money selling hardware. Especially when Dell's can sell this cheap: Is one MacBook Pro C2D worth two Dells? (http://blog.dealnews.com/?p=75)
And, from the look AAPL stock prices lately, I'd say they are doing just fine making their current "same mistake" right now.
Apple made a big mistake not licensing Mac OS 22 years ago allowing clones. Otherwise Mac OS X would be now the mainstream operating system.
Now history repeats. Apple has now the oppotunity to take over and beat Windows. But for that it is absolutely essential to allow Mac OS X to run on ANY PC out there.
Why does Apple make the same mistake?
Even more, if Apple would open Mac OS X completely including Aqua and give it for free as Linux, then Windows would be history in a few months!!!
Apple, are you listening?
I'd love to be able to legally install OS X on a Dell or build-it-myself PC, even it it wasn't $0, but Apple would tank in no time as they make the lion's share of their money selling hardware. Especially when Dell's can sell this cheap: Is one MacBook Pro C2D worth two Dells? (http://blog.dealnews.com/?p=75)
And, from the look AAPL stock prices lately, I'd say they are doing just fine making their current "same mistake" right now.
p0intblank
Jan 12, 12:36 AM
I thought Steve Jobs did an EXCELLENT job at the keynote this week. It was probably his best one in a while. Maybe you just fail to recognize the good side of things?
more...
Surf Monkey
Mar 17, 01:06 AM
As for the Karma, I found a iPhone 4 at Macy's 2-days before shopping with my girlfriend, and I didn't think twice about not turning it in. I made this woman's day when she got it back. So I figured hey, maybe that was a little something I got for doing something honest a few days before
We all find creative ways to justify our actions.
We all find creative ways to justify our actions.
Stella
Jan 10, 09:24 PM
Sad.
Very immature.
Very immature.
more...
Slix
Mar 24, 08:26 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)
True. :P
I'd like to see more screenshots from earlier OS X too. :D I would boot one up if I had extra old computers laying around right now.
True. :P
I'd like to see more screenshots from earlier OS X too. :D I would boot one up if I had extra old computers laying around right now.
Amazing Iceman
May 4, 08:38 AM
I really like the tone of these commercials.
Also, I enjoy that they keep saying magic or magical; only because I know how angry people (trolls, mostly) here get about it.
LOL... Well, Trolls, little green people, etc., are not that bad... it's just the way they are. All part of the "Magical World".
Also, I enjoy that they keep saying magic or magical; only because I know how angry people (trolls, mostly) here get about it.
LOL... Well, Trolls, little green people, etc., are not that bad... it's just the way they are. All part of the "Magical World".
more...
NAG
Jan 11, 10:42 PM
Before they posted the video they basically had a big post explaining why CES sucks and should go away. So I can believe it completely.
Al Coholic
Mar 28, 02:46 PM
The people have already voted...
It's called the "Top Grossing" category.
It's called the "Top Grossing" category.
Winni
Mar 29, 07:20 AM
Good. I'm all in favor of Apple adding more incentives for devs to embrace the Mac App store. As a consumer I really like the idea of an App Store that makes buying and installing as easy as one click as well as fostering competition between comparable apps.
Yes, the AppStore makes it (too) easy to comfortably spend money.
But as a consumer, I HATE the fact that I cannot sell the software that I purchased in the AppStore once I don't need or want it anymore. You know, this is my LEGAL RIGHT here in Germany, and with stuff bought from the AppStore, I don't have the possibility to execute this right because the AppStore does not have an option to transfer licenses to a new owner.
Valve's Steam platform has the same limitation, so sadly this is not unique to Apple's store.
This is why DRMed content should always be boycotted. DRM is not about granting the customer certain rights, it is exclusively about restricting his rights. In this case even to the extent to deny a customer his legal rights.
I don't have a problem with traditional license keys. That's a copy protection mechanism that I can tolerate. Activation procedures are already problematic (they are unreliable at best), but to dongle software to a specific user account in an online store without enabling the user to transfer that software to a different account should be prohibited by law.
It'll be their loss, especially since competitors like MS will follow suit and introduce a similar distribution model. Eventually everyone will be in the game, for the the simple reason that they'd like to duplicate Apple's success.
1. You intentionally ignored the point that referred to Apple's Terms of Service. For example, applications like VMWare Fusion, Parallels Desktop or even SuperDuper! could never be distributed through the Mac AppStore because they belong in a category that Apple does not ALLOW in their AppStore. As a matter of fact, even their own Xcode violates their TOS. But they wouldn't be Apple if the same rules also applied to themselves...
2. There won't be a Microsoft AppStore for Windows INTEGRATED INTO WINDOWS. EVER. Why? Because they can't for LEGAL reasons. Anti-trust lawsuits, anyone? Microsoft would only get away with that if they implemented a "choose your AppStore" program that would let the people choose which online store they want to use - just like they had to do it for the web browsers. I think that Apple should also be forced to do the same. After all, there is at least one other "AppStore" for the Mac out there that is even OLDER than Apple's own AppStore, and Apple misuses their power to drive those guys out of business. People stopped using Netscape when Internet Explorer came pre-installed on the operating system. Now people will not even try to look for another online store when the AppStore and iTunes are pre-installed on their computers. The same thing. The same rules should apply to Apple as they obviously apply to Microsoft.
Yes, the AppStore makes it (too) easy to comfortably spend money.
But as a consumer, I HATE the fact that I cannot sell the software that I purchased in the AppStore once I don't need or want it anymore. You know, this is my LEGAL RIGHT here in Germany, and with stuff bought from the AppStore, I don't have the possibility to execute this right because the AppStore does not have an option to transfer licenses to a new owner.
Valve's Steam platform has the same limitation, so sadly this is not unique to Apple's store.
This is why DRMed content should always be boycotted. DRM is not about granting the customer certain rights, it is exclusively about restricting his rights. In this case even to the extent to deny a customer his legal rights.
I don't have a problem with traditional license keys. That's a copy protection mechanism that I can tolerate. Activation procedures are already problematic (they are unreliable at best), but to dongle software to a specific user account in an online store without enabling the user to transfer that software to a different account should be prohibited by law.
It'll be their loss, especially since competitors like MS will follow suit and introduce a similar distribution model. Eventually everyone will be in the game, for the the simple reason that they'd like to duplicate Apple's success.
1. You intentionally ignored the point that referred to Apple's Terms of Service. For example, applications like VMWare Fusion, Parallels Desktop or even SuperDuper! could never be distributed through the Mac AppStore because they belong in a category that Apple does not ALLOW in their AppStore. As a matter of fact, even their own Xcode violates their TOS. But they wouldn't be Apple if the same rules also applied to themselves...
2. There won't be a Microsoft AppStore for Windows INTEGRATED INTO WINDOWS. EVER. Why? Because they can't for LEGAL reasons. Anti-trust lawsuits, anyone? Microsoft would only get away with that if they implemented a "choose your AppStore" program that would let the people choose which online store they want to use - just like they had to do it for the web browsers. I think that Apple should also be forced to do the same. After all, there is at least one other "AppStore" for the Mac out there that is even OLDER than Apple's own AppStore, and Apple misuses their power to drive those guys out of business. People stopped using Netscape when Internet Explorer came pre-installed on the operating system. Now people will not even try to look for another online store when the AppStore and iTunes are pre-installed on their computers. The same thing. The same rules should apply to Apple as they obviously apply to Microsoft.
Nekbeth
Apr 26, 08:08 PM
Sure, good to have that clear.
Then yes, they are indeed pointers to timers. The timers are created inside their methods, I use those pointers to reference them and use invalidate.
Here is part of the code:
.h (declaration of timers)
@interface ATimerViewController : UIViewController {
Then yes, they are indeed pointers to timers. The timers are created inside their methods, I use those pointers to reference them and use invalidate.
Here is part of the code:
.h (declaration of timers)
@interface ATimerViewController : UIViewController {
SeaFox
Oct 28, 11:23 PM
A) It's not the OSS community that's trying to crack Apple's DRM. Lets get that straight. These people have nothing to do with that community. These guys are just pirates using the source that is out there.
That's true. But they are the ones who are going bellyache continually about Apple not having the software available anymore. "Why can't I get the Darwin source code?" "This is unfair, they used BSD stuff and now they aren't sharing!" "Why haven't they released 10.4.9?" (when it comes out)
They aren't going to look at it from Apple's perspective. They aren't going to say. "Well, gee thanks Apple for trying to share the software with us. We're sorry you're getting screwed over by Wintel hackers who are too cheap to just buy a Mac." They're going too say. Well, we're sorry that's happening but you have to just put up with it as part of having your stuff available. They'll make Apple out to be evil when this is all a reactionary measure. Apple wants to release Darwin as open source, otherwise they could have just released the first version and then closed the source after that (they can legally do that, just because it was open source and you released it once doesn't mean you have to keep doing it). Apple would never be able to use any newer BSD components after that, they would begin maintaining their software as a fork pretty much. They only pulled it because someone keeps hacking to run it on plain beige box Wintels. And the OSS people aren't going to look at those hackers as the ones responsible for the source being pulled.
Many OSS people are the free as in speech types, but I feel most are a combination of the free as in speech and as in beer types. They wants software to be free for use and they don't think it should have a pricetag attached. These are the ones always saying Apple should have to release Aqua too just because the Darwin part of OSX is released.
Edit:
Oh ****! Thanks Apple! Now, how am I supposed to get Mac OS X to run on my old Linux box?
See? There they are now. "Oh, ****! Thanks Apple!" Who's fault is it the source was pulled again?
That's true. But they are the ones who are going bellyache continually about Apple not having the software available anymore. "Why can't I get the Darwin source code?" "This is unfair, they used BSD stuff and now they aren't sharing!" "Why haven't they released 10.4.9?" (when it comes out)
They aren't going to look at it from Apple's perspective. They aren't going to say. "Well, gee thanks Apple for trying to share the software with us. We're sorry you're getting screwed over by Wintel hackers who are too cheap to just buy a Mac." They're going too say. Well, we're sorry that's happening but you have to just put up with it as part of having your stuff available. They'll make Apple out to be evil when this is all a reactionary measure. Apple wants to release Darwin as open source, otherwise they could have just released the first version and then closed the source after that (they can legally do that, just because it was open source and you released it once doesn't mean you have to keep doing it). Apple would never be able to use any newer BSD components after that, they would begin maintaining their software as a fork pretty much. They only pulled it because someone keeps hacking to run it on plain beige box Wintels. And the OSS people aren't going to look at those hackers as the ones responsible for the source being pulled.
Many OSS people are the free as in speech types, but I feel most are a combination of the free as in speech and as in beer types. They wants software to be free for use and they don't think it should have a pricetag attached. These are the ones always saying Apple should have to release Aqua too just because the Darwin part of OSX is released.
Edit:
Oh ****! Thanks Apple! Now, how am I supposed to get Mac OS X to run on my old Linux box?
See? There they are now. "Oh, ****! Thanks Apple!" Who's fault is it the source was pulled again?
4np
Nov 17, 06:15 AM
The laptops are hot enough right now; AMD's tend to run even hotter so I hope this rumor is fake :S
darkpaw
Jan 15, 03:30 PM
Not overly excited about the keynote.
I got a 17" MBP 2.6GHz back in December, and it's fine for Logic Pro 8 and Lightwave 3D on the move.
I don't see how I would justify a $1799 thin laptop that's missing some necessary ports (FireWire 400/800, Ethernet (yes, I know there's a $29 adapter doodad)). Besides, how much will it cost in the UK? (The internet is being too slow to check...)
As Steve Jobs said when he announced the iPhone in the UK, "It costs more to do business over here". Yes, which is why the $20 iPod touch apps update is �12.99 over here, instead of �10.20 which is what the exchange rate demands. Even with some made up tax, it's another example of "rip-off Britain".
I got a 17" MBP 2.6GHz back in December, and it's fine for Logic Pro 8 and Lightwave 3D on the move.
I don't see how I would justify a $1799 thin laptop that's missing some necessary ports (FireWire 400/800, Ethernet (yes, I know there's a $29 adapter doodad)). Besides, how much will it cost in the UK? (The internet is being too slow to check...)
As Steve Jobs said when he announced the iPhone in the UK, "It costs more to do business over here". Yes, which is why the $20 iPod touch apps update is �12.99 over here, instead of �10.20 which is what the exchange rate demands. Even with some made up tax, it's another example of "rip-off Britain".
Ugg
May 4, 03:04 PM
The bill and its proposed draconian penalties is just ridiculous.
On the other hand, Dr. Choi should tend to the physical and mental well-being of his patients, and stop trying to play safety nanny. Sorry, but I find his arguments unconvincing, and if a busybody doctor starting quizzing me about safety practices around my home, I'd tell him to F off.
You do understand that Dr Choi is a pediatrician, don't you?
Not asking about a child's physical environment, seems almost criminal in my mind. We put plugs in the outlets, child proof caps on medicines, child proof latches on cupboards, get rid of sharp edged furniture, require child safety seats in vehicles... I honestly don't see why a pediatrician should not concern himself with all aspects of a child's safety.
Are you an NRA member?
On the other hand, Dr. Choi should tend to the physical and mental well-being of his patients, and stop trying to play safety nanny. Sorry, but I find his arguments unconvincing, and if a busybody doctor starting quizzing me about safety practices around my home, I'd tell him to F off.
You do understand that Dr Choi is a pediatrician, don't you?
Not asking about a child's physical environment, seems almost criminal in my mind. We put plugs in the outlets, child proof caps on medicines, child proof latches on cupboards, get rid of sharp edged furniture, require child safety seats in vehicles... I honestly don't see why a pediatrician should not concern himself with all aspects of a child's safety.
Are you an NRA member?