DeathChill
Apr 23, 12:11 PM
I have nothing against Apple shareholders (both shorts and longs :D). It's just this is not a forum for them. This is their forum: http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/mb/AAPL
This is my new favorite post. You, the guy who owns no Apple products (save for a battery charger) and quite clearly dislikes Apple, telling someone they are on the wrong forum.
This is my new favorite post. You, the guy who owns no Apple products (save for a battery charger) and quite clearly dislikes Apple, telling someone they are on the wrong forum.
gpc17
Apr 14, 12:32 PM
can someone tell me if gevey sim is still working on ios 4.3.2?
you can pm me as well...
thanks!!!
you can pm me as well...
thanks!!!
dethmaShine
Apr 16, 07:00 AM
Uh please.
Google has done a helluva lot to Android since they bought it. Android is unrecognisable now to what it was in 05. They have simply bought a brand name to get their product popular.
In other words, you are talking rubbish sir. Stop accusing people of trolling, when they are simply telling it how it is.
That's simply not what I meant.
And just so that you came to google developing android, they pretty much copied the entire iOS for what it did at that time and have been copying since.
Not denying that they didn't do anything themselves; but Google's Android OS looked moistly like iOS in late 2009. Simply a bad ripoff.
This comes from a Nexus S user; truth isn't that far off from reality.
Google has done a helluva lot to Android since they bought it. Android is unrecognisable now to what it was in 05. They have simply bought a brand name to get their product popular.
In other words, you are talking rubbish sir. Stop accusing people of trolling, when they are simply telling it how it is.
That's simply not what I meant.
And just so that you came to google developing android, they pretty much copied the entire iOS for what it did at that time and have been copying since.
Not denying that they didn't do anything themselves; but Google's Android OS looked moistly like iOS in late 2009. Simply a bad ripoff.
This comes from a Nexus S user; truth isn't that far off from reality.
Chris Bangle
Jul 28, 09:20 AM
It seems that nobody ever likes anything successful.. Look at poor mcdonalds,coca cola,Ford and now apple and its ipod.... All the biggest comapanies always get in trouble. BMW and their idrive, ford and the firestone blowouts, apple and hearing loss... while dont people stop being jealous and peee off.
more...
Jaffa Cake
Feb 25, 10:50 AM
There was a lad on the bus the other day who looked like the fat kid. I was hoping comedy capers would follow, but alas not.
blahblah100
Apr 29, 02:56 PM
Apple pays 70% straight to the record companies, which would be $0.90. If Amazon pays the same, then they have $0.21 loss before they even start. Or Amazon gets different prices than Apple, which would need some explaining.
How so? Why would there need to be some explaining, if this was the case?
How so? Why would there need to be some explaining, if this was the case?
more...
twoodcc
Nov 29, 05:49 PM
I now have 2 gpu's running which should put up some additional points. I have stopped the cpu folding on that machine, it wasn't doing nearly as many ppd in windows as it was in linux. Hopefully I can push over the 400k ppw mark but we shall see.
I am used to win xp at work but win 7 has been a challenge to figure out, so many things have changed...
nice. both 275s? how do you keep up with the wattage?
I am used to win xp at work but win 7 has been a challenge to figure out, so many things have changed...
nice. both 275s? how do you keep up with the wattage?
rdowns
Jan 30, 12:36 PM
Jon Cryer has to be the most unhappy guy in the world right now.
more...
Westside guy
Nov 8, 12:30 AM
I've had about 6 kernel panics in about a time span of 2 months.
This can be caused by a number of things (on any computer; not just on a Mac):
- Bad RAM. More likely if you've added a 3rd party stick yourself.
- Bad power supply.
- Faulty (or noisy/dirty) house wiring. More noticable with a desktop than a laptop since the laptop's transformer will help isolate the computer from the noise.
This can be caused by a number of things (on any computer; not just on a Mac):
- Bad RAM. More likely if you've added a 3rd party stick yourself.
- Bad power supply.
- Faulty (or noisy/dirty) house wiring. More noticable with a desktop than a laptop since the laptop's transformer will help isolate the computer from the noise.
NMBob
Mar 31, 10:36 AM
Pretty soon we'll be able to change the appearance of everything just like in Windows. I sure hope they invest many more man-years in the development of this technology.
(I get upset at least once a month because I can't change the appearance of something in SL, but this is a bit much. I guess they are running out of things for people to do. Time to thin the herd.)
(I get upset at least once a month because I can't change the appearance of something in SL, but this is a bit much. I guess they are running out of things for people to do. Time to thin the herd.)
more...
valdore
Jan 25, 06:45 PM
Apple's stock (APPL in NYSE) has plummeted $68 in the last 30 days (from $198 to $130 or 35%) does anyone know what has caused this? Curious...
-Hart
The ticker is AAPL, and it's traded on Nasdaq, not NYSE.
-Hart
The ticker is AAPL, and it's traded on Nasdaq, not NYSE.
KnightWRX
Apr 16, 06:42 AM
Apple didn't buy iOS/OS X. They created it from scratch using components from UNIX/NeXTSTEP. Simple.
First, OS X is very much like the last versions of NeXTSTEP was, aside from Quartz/Appkit frameworks and GUI layer. Foundation is basically what was shipping in the 90s, the kernel/BSD userland, etc...
Apple has done a lot of work on it, and I've said so in my posts several times. I'm not diminishing their work in anyway. Again, I'm simply stating that pissing over Google because they "acquired" and used "open source" is quick disingenuous in the face of Apple having done the same for both their flagship OSes.
It's great that Google bought Android but there's a very few things google have done on their own.
How do you know ? You saw Android in 2005 ? You can seriously compare what Andy's company made back then to what is actually shipping now ? The evolution from Android 1.0 to 2.3/3.0 is quite astounding by itself, who knows what went on between 2005 and version 1.0 that shipped in late 2009.
Why even attempt to diminish the work ? Apple does the same acquisition, they use open source projects to quicken development. The histories are similar, the goals are similar. Why hate Google over it, and why do you think it doesn't also reflect on Apple when you do ?
I will leave the rest of your post out and just report it to the mods instead. I suggest editing your post to remove your clear lack of respect. If you want to discuss the merits of each at the fine detail, I don't think this is the thread for it. Again, let's drop the Google hate and talk OS X instead.
First, OS X is very much like the last versions of NeXTSTEP was, aside from Quartz/Appkit frameworks and GUI layer. Foundation is basically what was shipping in the 90s, the kernel/BSD userland, etc...
Apple has done a lot of work on it, and I've said so in my posts several times. I'm not diminishing their work in anyway. Again, I'm simply stating that pissing over Google because they "acquired" and used "open source" is quick disingenuous in the face of Apple having done the same for both their flagship OSes.
It's great that Google bought Android but there's a very few things google have done on their own.
How do you know ? You saw Android in 2005 ? You can seriously compare what Andy's company made back then to what is actually shipping now ? The evolution from Android 1.0 to 2.3/3.0 is quite astounding by itself, who knows what went on between 2005 and version 1.0 that shipped in late 2009.
Why even attempt to diminish the work ? Apple does the same acquisition, they use open source projects to quicken development. The histories are similar, the goals are similar. Why hate Google over it, and why do you think it doesn't also reflect on Apple when you do ?
I will leave the rest of your post out and just report it to the mods instead. I suggest editing your post to remove your clear lack of respect. If you want to discuss the merits of each at the fine detail, I don't think this is the thread for it. Again, let's drop the Google hate and talk OS X instead.
more...
Kwill
Apr 26, 05:49 PM
Yeah while Apple realizes people want their mobile smartphone to be small and portable as that is a key part of the puzzle the rest of the industry is trying to duplicate this:
Image (http://i54.tinypic.com/2r5q079.jpg)
with a touch screen.
I hear those big phones cause cancer.
Image (http://i54.tinypic.com/2r5q079.jpg)
with a touch screen.
I hear those big phones cause cancer.
Surely
Sep 13, 06:32 PM
^^^The food's pretty good. I was never disappointed.
hubba hubba. i guess? hahaha
3 month supply set me back $70 with copay. $370 with no insurance!! :eek: Boys are lucky.
Nice edit.:D
hubba hubba. i guess? hahaha
3 month supply set me back $70 with copay. $370 with no insurance!! :eek: Boys are lucky.
Nice edit.:D
more...
sfwalter
Oct 24, 08:57 AM
IMHO--A solid upgrade. Same price point but more memory, more video ram, fw 800, dual layer burner.
I'm jealous! I have a the original Macbook Pro. But my laptop was just fine yesterday so I won't be upgrading til the next major upgrade.
I'm jealous! I have a the original Macbook Pro. But my laptop was just fine yesterday so I won't be upgrading til the next major upgrade.
Snowy_River
Jul 26, 06:08 PM
Just touching it is not tactile feedback. That would be like saying a piece of paper provides feedback if you touch it. Feedback means a signal is sent back to the user to acknowledge the the pressing of the control. The 3G iPod buttons gave an audio click - that is aural feedback. They also showed things on the screen - that is visual feedback. But they didn't spring, or have a physical barrier that you push through, so there was no tactile feedback (i.e. nothing that can be physically felt) to let you know that you pressed the button.
tactile |?taktl; ?tak?t?l|
adjective
� of or connected with the sense of touch
� perceptible by touch or apparently so; tangible
� designed to be perceived by touch
Tactile means that you touch it! If you touch something you get a tactile feedback from it, unless your finger is numb. Thus, if you're waving you hand over control, you get no tactile feedback. Whereas, even if the control doesn't push in, the simple act of touching a control does give tactile feedback. (Perhaps less tactile feedback than a control that does push in, but it still gives tactile feedback.)
When you press a button on a dead iPod, it does nothing, and it feels exactly the same as pressing a button on a working iPod - no tactile feedback.
Irrelevant. If you push a key on the keyboard of a dead computer it behaves the same as pressing the key on the keyboard of a working computer. So, by your logic, these keys that press down give no tactile feedback.
Who said it was revolutionary? And it could consitute a none-touch interface. It depends on if the patent is describing the control or the entire iPod. If there is a cover, you are not touching the control (the screen underneath), but the cover over it - hence none-touch.
My point was not to say that your suggestion was not possible, just that it was a small step above what already exists, as opposed to a revolutionary leap forward based on the description in the patent. Of course, for anyone who knows a little bit about patent writing and patent law, what's written in the patent is probably the broadest possible applications that Apple can think of to include in their patent.
A better (i.e. more scratch-proof) cover would be better. Who cares about fingerprints? You can clean those off. I don't want to hover my finger over something to control it - I'd always have to be careful not to touch the screen (unless it was durable). Not very good when on a bus, train etc., where the vehicle is shaking.
And if a better material were easily available, don't you think they'd be using it? :rolleyes:
tactile |?taktl; ?tak?t?l|
adjective
� of or connected with the sense of touch
� perceptible by touch or apparently so; tangible
� designed to be perceived by touch
Tactile means that you touch it! If you touch something you get a tactile feedback from it, unless your finger is numb. Thus, if you're waving you hand over control, you get no tactile feedback. Whereas, even if the control doesn't push in, the simple act of touching a control does give tactile feedback. (Perhaps less tactile feedback than a control that does push in, but it still gives tactile feedback.)
When you press a button on a dead iPod, it does nothing, and it feels exactly the same as pressing a button on a working iPod - no tactile feedback.
Irrelevant. If you push a key on the keyboard of a dead computer it behaves the same as pressing the key on the keyboard of a working computer. So, by your logic, these keys that press down give no tactile feedback.
Who said it was revolutionary? And it could consitute a none-touch interface. It depends on if the patent is describing the control or the entire iPod. If there is a cover, you are not touching the control (the screen underneath), but the cover over it - hence none-touch.
My point was not to say that your suggestion was not possible, just that it was a small step above what already exists, as opposed to a revolutionary leap forward based on the description in the patent. Of course, for anyone who knows a little bit about patent writing and patent law, what's written in the patent is probably the broadest possible applications that Apple can think of to include in their patent.
A better (i.e. more scratch-proof) cover would be better. Who cares about fingerprints? You can clean those off. I don't want to hover my finger over something to control it - I'd always have to be careful not to touch the screen (unless it was durable). Not very good when on a bus, train etc., where the vehicle is shaking.
And if a better material were easily available, don't you think they'd be using it? :rolleyes:
more...
Pandaboots
Jan 26, 03:29 AM
I've lost a bit. :( actually quite a lot. I bought at around 170ish a while ago in prepare for the surge of macworld like last year but am at a bit of a loss right now. I think my avatar shows my recent mood.
You haven't lost anything until you actually sell. Maybe this story will help:
Apple was the last stock I bought back during the dot com days of the late 90's/early 2000's. I got burned trying to buy and sell all the dot coms on a daily basis, so I decided that I'd "invest" what I had left in Apple. Anyway, I bought Apple at $49/share in the year 2000. I thought it was a great price for whatever reason. Guess what? The price fell to around $7 within a very short period of time. Go look at a chart and you will see the cliff in which I speak of. However, I didn't lose my cool. I was in it for the long haul, so I maintained my position. I think patience is key to investing. Long story short, I did sell at $200 recently because I wanted to diversify those earnings and made a 720% return on my investment. So essentially, my original investment more than doubled itself each year I owned the stock. Why $200? I don't know, they had been so close to it for a while that it just sounded like a good round number. Anyway, I've had my fair share of doubts throughout my 7 year stint with Apple. I never dreamed Apple would be at $200/share. I've seen huge dips in their price in short periods of time, and I've also seen huge gains too. I've also had the stock split on me too. I've also felt it was doomed and there's no way it could ever do this or ever do that....
Think about what all has happened with Apple since 2000: I've seen OS X launched, the iPod launched, iTunes launched, the switch to flat screens, all the computers they've launched, iLife, iWork, iPhone, :apple:TV, addition of movies and tv shows, etc. etc. So here's why I invested in Apple in 2000:
1) I loved the company
2) I loved their products
3) I got excited about their products
4) I was a proud customer
5) I actually kept up with what was going on with the company (mainly through appleinsider and then macrumors shortly thereafter)
6) I knew Apple was innovative and had good leadership
7) I read all of the magazines related to Apple and talked everyones ear off about Apple
However, I didn't choose Apple because of the iPod (it didn't exist then), or whether or not they expected their 2nd qtr to be better than their all time greatest qtr in history. In a nutshell I chose Apple because I believed in their products/their management team/and their ability to produce a quality product that excites people.
So, I guess what you have to ask yourself is, in the next 7 years where will Apple be as far as products and innovation? Only thing I know is since re-investing in them in December at $182, they've released :apple:TV 2, movie rentals, Macbook Air, Time Capsule, an 8 core mac pro and a pink nano (lol). I think Apple is poised and ready to dominate other markets now..pfft iPod, that's so 5 years ago, blah blah blah, Apple owns the market and will maintain their dominance, now it's time for them to dominate in the movies and the phones and hopefully in computers.
If you think they are done, then I'd be worried and sell your shares as soon as you can. If you still believe in Apple, like I do, average down your shares while you can and hold on. At these prices right now, Apple can easily double in value again. They are better positioned than ever to take on their competition. All my 7 reasons above are as true today as they were 7 years ago and 7 years prior to that. :)
You haven't lost anything until you actually sell. Maybe this story will help:
Apple was the last stock I bought back during the dot com days of the late 90's/early 2000's. I got burned trying to buy and sell all the dot coms on a daily basis, so I decided that I'd "invest" what I had left in Apple. Anyway, I bought Apple at $49/share in the year 2000. I thought it was a great price for whatever reason. Guess what? The price fell to around $7 within a very short period of time. Go look at a chart and you will see the cliff in which I speak of. However, I didn't lose my cool. I was in it for the long haul, so I maintained my position. I think patience is key to investing. Long story short, I did sell at $200 recently because I wanted to diversify those earnings and made a 720% return on my investment. So essentially, my original investment more than doubled itself each year I owned the stock. Why $200? I don't know, they had been so close to it for a while that it just sounded like a good round number. Anyway, I've had my fair share of doubts throughout my 7 year stint with Apple. I never dreamed Apple would be at $200/share. I've seen huge dips in their price in short periods of time, and I've also seen huge gains too. I've also had the stock split on me too. I've also felt it was doomed and there's no way it could ever do this or ever do that....
Think about what all has happened with Apple since 2000: I've seen OS X launched, the iPod launched, iTunes launched, the switch to flat screens, all the computers they've launched, iLife, iWork, iPhone, :apple:TV, addition of movies and tv shows, etc. etc. So here's why I invested in Apple in 2000:
1) I loved the company
2) I loved their products
3) I got excited about their products
4) I was a proud customer
5) I actually kept up with what was going on with the company (mainly through appleinsider and then macrumors shortly thereafter)
6) I knew Apple was innovative and had good leadership
7) I read all of the magazines related to Apple and talked everyones ear off about Apple
However, I didn't choose Apple because of the iPod (it didn't exist then), or whether or not they expected their 2nd qtr to be better than their all time greatest qtr in history. In a nutshell I chose Apple because I believed in their products/their management team/and their ability to produce a quality product that excites people.
So, I guess what you have to ask yourself is, in the next 7 years where will Apple be as far as products and innovation? Only thing I know is since re-investing in them in December at $182, they've released :apple:TV 2, movie rentals, Macbook Air, Time Capsule, an 8 core mac pro and a pink nano (lol). I think Apple is poised and ready to dominate other markets now..pfft iPod, that's so 5 years ago, blah blah blah, Apple owns the market and will maintain their dominance, now it's time for them to dominate in the movies and the phones and hopefully in computers.
If you think they are done, then I'd be worried and sell your shares as soon as you can. If you still believe in Apple, like I do, average down your shares while you can and hold on. At these prices right now, Apple can easily double in value again. They are better positioned than ever to take on their competition. All my 7 reasons above are as true today as they were 7 years ago and 7 years prior to that. :)
logandzwon
Apr 22, 09:09 AM
yeah, apple are stupid....they havnt got a clue what they are doing have they... :rolleyes:
No clue at all. Have you seen that apple phone? It is the most expensive phone in the world and it doesn't appeal to business customers!
No clue at all. Have you seen that apple phone? It is the most expensive phone in the world and it doesn't appeal to business customers!
lordonuthin
Oct 20, 10:06 PM
Someone claim the got 43 mins frame time on the biadv with a core i860 and Linux, same CPU as the higher end iMac. That is the same as my 3Ghz 8 core Mac Pro. You think it is possible?
I think they were dreaming;) my i7 920 with ubuntu does normal frames in about 6 minutes, I think, I'm at work now so not absolutely sure but in that range. The mp is running normal frames at about 2 minutes.
I think they were dreaming;) my i7 920 with ubuntu does normal frames in about 6 minutes, I think, I'm at work now so not absolutely sure but in that range. The mp is running normal frames at about 2 minutes.
ciTiger
Apr 29, 03:58 PM
Competition is good... I might start looking at amazon for the next dls...
toddybody
Apr 15, 02:01 PM
no
Yep...I mean no, er uh...iCal is ugly :(
Yep...I mean no, er uh...iCal is ugly :(
JAT
Apr 25, 10:15 AM
why do people believe this is possible? Apple will not allow one carrier to undersell the other on the SAME DEVICE...just won't happen it's bad for sales...which is why there is no competition between AT&T and Verizon...similar plans on voice text and data...otherwise everyone would play carrier swap every few month to get the best deal...if Tmobile gets the iPhone while still independent from AT&T you better believe you won't get unlimited everything for 70 bucks
Why wouldn't it be possible? Apple in no way dictates the plan pricing, just the hardware pricing. (although I believe they have fought for better data pricing, and mostly been ignored by ATT on that) Tmob is clearly cheaper in most standard calling plans. Data is the same price, more or less (the GB limits can differ), across all carriers, so that's not in question. Text plans are pretty similar, too. It's the phone plans that differ.
For instance, the base family plan from Tmob is $50, $60 from ATT and Verizon.
Not to mention that Sprint does offer unlimited everything for a single line for $70. That is for any smartphone, some of which cost more than the iPhone, so why would the iPhone change that part of the pricing?
Why wouldn't it be possible? Apple in no way dictates the plan pricing, just the hardware pricing. (although I believe they have fought for better data pricing, and mostly been ignored by ATT on that) Tmob is clearly cheaper in most standard calling plans. Data is the same price, more or less (the GB limits can differ), across all carriers, so that's not in question. Text plans are pretty similar, too. It's the phone plans that differ.
For instance, the base family plan from Tmob is $50, $60 from ATT and Verizon.
Not to mention that Sprint does offer unlimited everything for a single line for $70. That is for any smartphone, some of which cost more than the iPhone, so why would the iPhone change that part of the pricing?
nowonder24
Apr 28, 11:33 PM
Anecdotal evidence is so exciting!
Exactly my point ;)
Exactly my point ;)
CorvusCamenarum
May 1, 10:27 PM
Are you sure it wasn't UK forces who eliminated him? Either way, you gotta say "he was killed by allied forces".
So who gets the bounty? IIRC there was a $25 million price on his head.
So who gets the bounty? IIRC there was a $25 million price on his head.