Thunderhawks
Apr 7, 10:17 AM
Ehh, purposeful or not (as a sabotage)...not good news for iPad competition:( Which isnt good news for us iPad users...Apple needs constant pressure to release revolutionary products.
Of course not purposeful. They bought what they needed and couldn't care less as long as they got what they needed.
Why would anybody care about competitors getting any components of any kind, if they get what they need?
Don't agree that Apple needs constant pressure.
Any good company gets its pressure from within (to make it's products better, to sell the next generation) and from market research and consumer communications.
I bet they know that MobileMe sucks (I gave it up as there is better stuff for free) and will do a major overhaul.
I think we will see tablets taking a big chunk out of notebooks and become the next note book generation.
The next revolutionary thing. (Dick Tracy watch that works:-)
Could be that we'll all run around with little receivers and get the info out of the cloud via Wifi type "Gas" station network free of specific carriers.
You'd go to such a station and dial yourself into your network as they all have Verizon, ATT , but they'd also have the renegades etc.
These receivers will be able to project anything one would normally watch on a screen onto anything flat (wall , paper , desktop, side of a briefcase, even your hand etc.) so the current panels could become strong projecting lenses.
Lenses can be smaller to project, so development of image sensors is next.
Go RIM , MS and start developing or Apple will.
Of course not purposeful. They bought what they needed and couldn't care less as long as they got what they needed.
Why would anybody care about competitors getting any components of any kind, if they get what they need?
Don't agree that Apple needs constant pressure.
Any good company gets its pressure from within (to make it's products better, to sell the next generation) and from market research and consumer communications.
I bet they know that MobileMe sucks (I gave it up as there is better stuff for free) and will do a major overhaul.
I think we will see tablets taking a big chunk out of notebooks and become the next note book generation.
The next revolutionary thing. (Dick Tracy watch that works:-)
Could be that we'll all run around with little receivers and get the info out of the cloud via Wifi type "Gas" station network free of specific carriers.
You'd go to such a station and dial yourself into your network as they all have Verizon, ATT , but they'd also have the renegades etc.
These receivers will be able to project anything one would normally watch on a screen onto anything flat (wall , paper , desktop, side of a briefcase, even your hand etc.) so the current panels could become strong projecting lenses.
Lenses can be smaller to project, so development of image sensors is next.
Go RIM , MS and start developing or Apple will.
cirus
Apr 24, 01:54 PM
You contradict yourself here. A 27" iMac is probably already retina, considering the viewing distance should be around 30" away.
As the distance grows, the PPI treshold to achieve the "retina" effect of "Eye can't distinguish the individual pixels" becomes lower. Given enough distance, 48 PPI can be enough to be dubbed "retina display" (your standard 50" 1080p TV).
No, you're not wrong. But I'm not either. I'll let you figure out why (think about the lower case b in Mbps vs MB of RAM ;) ). Unless I'm misinterpreting something, I doubt DP 1.2 can push out 21 gigaBYTES of data per second...
As for the 6990 listing that as max resolution, I'm betting that has more to do with current LCD display limitation (that is the max resolutions you'll find on an LCD monitor) than with actual hardware limitation. The hardware is capable of more than that. Some of these cards with a single GPU have 2-4 DP outputs capable of driving 2-4 of these 2560x1600 monitors. The GPU itself doesn't a problem pushing out these pixels and DP 1.2 makes it so they can push it over a single connection.
Sony was there first with the Vaio Z. 13.3", 1920x1080 baby. If it weren't so expensive it would be mine and I'd be back to running Linux.
Thanks, a 'duh' moment for me.
However, ati does list the 6990 as having a maximum display resolution of 2650 x 1600 per display though it can handle up to 6 displays. There will have to be a change somewhere. (Though you could probably write a program that would allow this resolution). That is still going to max out thunderbolt so you would not be able to drive one of those displays at native with a macbook pro.
As the distance grows, the PPI treshold to achieve the "retina" effect of "Eye can't distinguish the individual pixels" becomes lower. Given enough distance, 48 PPI can be enough to be dubbed "retina display" (your standard 50" 1080p TV).
No, you're not wrong. But I'm not either. I'll let you figure out why (think about the lower case b in Mbps vs MB of RAM ;) ). Unless I'm misinterpreting something, I doubt DP 1.2 can push out 21 gigaBYTES of data per second...
As for the 6990 listing that as max resolution, I'm betting that has more to do with current LCD display limitation (that is the max resolutions you'll find on an LCD monitor) than with actual hardware limitation. The hardware is capable of more than that. Some of these cards with a single GPU have 2-4 DP outputs capable of driving 2-4 of these 2560x1600 monitors. The GPU itself doesn't a problem pushing out these pixels and DP 1.2 makes it so they can push it over a single connection.
Sony was there first with the Vaio Z. 13.3", 1920x1080 baby. If it weren't so expensive it would be mine and I'd be back to running Linux.
Thanks, a 'duh' moment for me.
However, ati does list the 6990 as having a maximum display resolution of 2650 x 1600 per display though it can handle up to 6 displays. There will have to be a change somewhere. (Though you could probably write a program that would allow this resolution). That is still going to max out thunderbolt so you would not be able to drive one of those displays at native with a macbook pro.
MikeTheC
Nov 25, 10:46 PM
All this talk about Palm needing to modernize their OS, or it is outdated, or needing to re-write is absolutely hilarious.
On a phone, I want to use its features quickly and easily. When I have to schedule an appointment, I want to enter that appointment as easily as possible. When I want to add something to my to-do list, I want to do it easily and quickly. And first and foremost, I want to be able to look up a contact and dial it as quickly as possible.
A phone is not a personal computer. I couldn't care less about multitasking, rewriting, "modern" OSes (whatever "modern" means). "Modern" features and look is just eye candy and/or toys. A mobile phone is a gadget of convenience, and it should be convenient to use. Even PalmOS 1.0 was convenient. It was just as easy to use its contact and calendar features as any so-called "modern" OS is today.
I would really like to know how "modernizing" the OS on my phone would help me look up contacts, dial contacts, enter to-do list entries, and entering calendar entries any better that I could today.
Again, I repeat: a phone is not a personal computer. There's no point in treating it as such.
The same point could largely be made about cars, but I don't think either of us would want to be driving a Model T or Model A Ford these days, would we?
The term "Modern" as applied to operating systems has little to do with the interface per se. It primarily concerns the underpinnings of the OS and how forward-looking and/or open-ended it is. Older operating systems, if you want to look at it in this way, were very geared to the hardware of their times, and every time you added a new hardware feature or some new kind of technology came out, you wound up making this big patchwork of an OS, in which you had either an out-dated or obsolete "core" around which was stuck, somewhat unglamorously, lots of crap to allow it to do stuff it wasn't really designed for. Then, you wound up having to write patches for the patches, etc., ad infinitum.
Apple tried to go the internal development route, but that didn't work because their departmental infrastructure was eating them from the inside out at the time and basically poisoned all of their new projects. They considered BeOS because it was an incredibly modern OS at the time that was very capable, unbelievably good at multitasking, memory protection, multimedia tasks, etc. However, that company was so shaky that when Apple decided not to go with them, they collapsed. One of the products which was introduced and sold and almost immediately recalled that used a version of BeOS was Sony's eVilla (you just have to love that name -- try pronouncing it out loud to get the full effect).
Ultimately, they went with NeXT's BSD- and Mach-Kernel-based NeXTStep (which after a bunch of time and effort and -- since lots of it is based on Open Source software, there were a healthy amount of community contributions to) and hence we now have Mac OS X.
I'll leave it to actual developers and/or coders here to better explain and refine (and/or correct) what I've said here, should you wish greater detail beyond what I am able to -- and therefore have -- provided above.
The whole point of going with a modern OS implemented for an imbedded market (i.e. "Mac OS X Mobile") is it gives you much more direct (and probably better implemented and/or better-grounded) access to modern technologies. Everything from basic I/O tasks that reside in the Kernel to audio processing to doing H.264 decoding to having access to IPv4 or IPv6, are all examples of things which a modern OS could do a better job of providing and/or backing.
From what I understand, PalmOS is something that was designed to first and foremost give you basic notepad and daily organizer functionality. When they wrote, as you say, PalmOS 1.0, they happened to implement a way for third parties to write software that could run on it. This has been both a benefit and a bane of PalmOS's existence. First off, they now have the same issues of backwards-compatibility and storage space and memory use/abuse that a regular computer OS has. I said it was both a benefit and a bane; but there's actually two parts to the "bane" side. The first I've already mentioned, but the second is the fact that since apps have been written which can do darn near any conceivable task, people keep wanting more and more and more. And this then goes back to the "patchwork" I described earlier in talking about "older" computer OSs.
Then people want multimedia, and color screens, and apps to take advantage of it, and they want Palm to incorporate DSPs so they can play music, and of course that brings along with it all of the extra patching to then allow for the existence of, and permit the use of, an on-board DSP. And now you want WiFi? Well, shoot, now we gotta have IPv4 as well, and support for TCP/IP, none of which was ever a part of the original concept of PalmOS.
And even if you don't want or need any of those features in your own PDA, I'm sorry but that's really just too bad. Go live in a cave if you like, but if you buy a new PDA, guess what: you're gonna get all that stuff.
And at some point, all of this stretches an "older" OS just a bit too far, or it becomes a bit absurd with all the hoops and turns and wiggling that PalmOne's coders have to go through, so then they say, "Aw **** it, let's just re-write the thing."
Apple comes to this without any of *that* sort of legacy. Doubtless there will be no Newton code on this thing anywhere, but what Apple's got is Mac OS X, which means they also have the power (albeit somewhat indirectly) of an Open Source OS -- Linux. And in case you weren't aware, there are already numerous "imbedded" implementations of Linux -- phones, PDAs, game systems, kiosks, etc. -- all of which are data points and collective experience opportunities which ALREADY EXIST that Apple can exploit.
So no, having a "modern" OS is not a bad thing. It's actually a supremely awesome thing. What you're concerned about is having something that is intuitive AND efficient AND appropriate to the world of telephone interfaces for the user interface on the device you'd go and buy yourself.
All I can say, based on past performance, is give Apple a chance.
Now, here's a larger picture thought to ponder...
If Apple goes to market with the iPhone, then this is going to open up (to some extent) the viability of a F/OSS community cell phone. And this is a really good thing as well because it represents a non-commercial, enthusiast entrance into what up until now has been a totally proprietary, locked-down OS-based product world. It has the potential to do to cell phones what Linux has inspired in Mac OS X.
On a phone, I want to use its features quickly and easily. When I have to schedule an appointment, I want to enter that appointment as easily as possible. When I want to add something to my to-do list, I want to do it easily and quickly. And first and foremost, I want to be able to look up a contact and dial it as quickly as possible.
A phone is not a personal computer. I couldn't care less about multitasking, rewriting, "modern" OSes (whatever "modern" means). "Modern" features and look is just eye candy and/or toys. A mobile phone is a gadget of convenience, and it should be convenient to use. Even PalmOS 1.0 was convenient. It was just as easy to use its contact and calendar features as any so-called "modern" OS is today.
I would really like to know how "modernizing" the OS on my phone would help me look up contacts, dial contacts, enter to-do list entries, and entering calendar entries any better that I could today.
Again, I repeat: a phone is not a personal computer. There's no point in treating it as such.
The same point could largely be made about cars, but I don't think either of us would want to be driving a Model T or Model A Ford these days, would we?
The term "Modern" as applied to operating systems has little to do with the interface per se. It primarily concerns the underpinnings of the OS and how forward-looking and/or open-ended it is. Older operating systems, if you want to look at it in this way, were very geared to the hardware of their times, and every time you added a new hardware feature or some new kind of technology came out, you wound up making this big patchwork of an OS, in which you had either an out-dated or obsolete "core" around which was stuck, somewhat unglamorously, lots of crap to allow it to do stuff it wasn't really designed for. Then, you wound up having to write patches for the patches, etc., ad infinitum.
Apple tried to go the internal development route, but that didn't work because their departmental infrastructure was eating them from the inside out at the time and basically poisoned all of their new projects. They considered BeOS because it was an incredibly modern OS at the time that was very capable, unbelievably good at multitasking, memory protection, multimedia tasks, etc. However, that company was so shaky that when Apple decided not to go with them, they collapsed. One of the products which was introduced and sold and almost immediately recalled that used a version of BeOS was Sony's eVilla (you just have to love that name -- try pronouncing it out loud to get the full effect).
Ultimately, they went with NeXT's BSD- and Mach-Kernel-based NeXTStep (which after a bunch of time and effort and -- since lots of it is based on Open Source software, there were a healthy amount of community contributions to) and hence we now have Mac OS X.
I'll leave it to actual developers and/or coders here to better explain and refine (and/or correct) what I've said here, should you wish greater detail beyond what I am able to -- and therefore have -- provided above.
The whole point of going with a modern OS implemented for an imbedded market (i.e. "Mac OS X Mobile") is it gives you much more direct (and probably better implemented and/or better-grounded) access to modern technologies. Everything from basic I/O tasks that reside in the Kernel to audio processing to doing H.264 decoding to having access to IPv4 or IPv6, are all examples of things which a modern OS could do a better job of providing and/or backing.
From what I understand, PalmOS is something that was designed to first and foremost give you basic notepad and daily organizer functionality. When they wrote, as you say, PalmOS 1.0, they happened to implement a way for third parties to write software that could run on it. This has been both a benefit and a bane of PalmOS's existence. First off, they now have the same issues of backwards-compatibility and storage space and memory use/abuse that a regular computer OS has. I said it was both a benefit and a bane; but there's actually two parts to the "bane" side. The first I've already mentioned, but the second is the fact that since apps have been written which can do darn near any conceivable task, people keep wanting more and more and more. And this then goes back to the "patchwork" I described earlier in talking about "older" computer OSs.
Then people want multimedia, and color screens, and apps to take advantage of it, and they want Palm to incorporate DSPs so they can play music, and of course that brings along with it all of the extra patching to then allow for the existence of, and permit the use of, an on-board DSP. And now you want WiFi? Well, shoot, now we gotta have IPv4 as well, and support for TCP/IP, none of which was ever a part of the original concept of PalmOS.
And even if you don't want or need any of those features in your own PDA, I'm sorry but that's really just too bad. Go live in a cave if you like, but if you buy a new PDA, guess what: you're gonna get all that stuff.
And at some point, all of this stretches an "older" OS just a bit too far, or it becomes a bit absurd with all the hoops and turns and wiggling that PalmOne's coders have to go through, so then they say, "Aw **** it, let's just re-write the thing."
Apple comes to this without any of *that* sort of legacy. Doubtless there will be no Newton code on this thing anywhere, but what Apple's got is Mac OS X, which means they also have the power (albeit somewhat indirectly) of an Open Source OS -- Linux. And in case you weren't aware, there are already numerous "imbedded" implementations of Linux -- phones, PDAs, game systems, kiosks, etc. -- all of which are data points and collective experience opportunities which ALREADY EXIST that Apple can exploit.
So no, having a "modern" OS is not a bad thing. It's actually a supremely awesome thing. What you're concerned about is having something that is intuitive AND efficient AND appropriate to the world of telephone interfaces for the user interface on the device you'd go and buy yourself.
All I can say, based on past performance, is give Apple a chance.
Now, here's a larger picture thought to ponder...
If Apple goes to market with the iPhone, then this is going to open up (to some extent) the viability of a F/OSS community cell phone. And this is a really good thing as well because it represents a non-commercial, enthusiast entrance into what up until now has been a totally proprietary, locked-down OS-based product world. It has the potential to do to cell phones what Linux has inspired in Mac OS X.
smulji
Mar 31, 01:45 AM
They sold well over 1 million desktops/workstation units last quarter and will surpass that quite handily this quarter.
People who think they know Apple's long term strategy as iOS only know nothing of Apple.
Out of curiosity then, what is the long term strategy of Apple? Educate us.
People who think they know Apple's long term strategy as iOS only know nothing of Apple.
Out of curiosity then, what is the long term strategy of Apple? Educate us.
canderton
Apr 5, 03:17 PM
Apple better watch who they pick fights with, especially with one of the largest corporations in the world. I love Apple but I honestly wish Toyota would just tell them to F off.
ECUpirate44
Apr 9, 06:12 PM
The answer is 288.
Back to 7th grade Math: Order of operations= PEMDAS
Parentheses first 9+3=12
Then division 48/2=24 because 24X2 is 48. Multiplication and division go together.
Then multiplication because they are next to each other. 24(12)=288
Back to 7th grade Math: Order of operations= PEMDAS
Parentheses first 9+3=12
Then division 48/2=24 because 24X2 is 48. Multiplication and division go together.
Then multiplication because they are next to each other. 24(12)=288
Benjy91
Apr 20, 09:46 AM
I wouldn't mind a heavier phone, if it meant better battery life or a bigger screen.
I think Apple are too obsessed with this "Thinner, Lighter" everything. It's a phone, it is no where near 'Heavy'
I think Apple are too obsessed with this "Thinner, Lighter" everything. It's a phone, it is no where near 'Heavy'
powers74
May 6, 08:12 AM
So they can customize/design their own chips. I've been predicting this for years now.
ciTiger
Apr 26, 03:34 PM
Android will rule in numbers... It ha more handsets on more carriers and cheaper hardware. iOS can't compete with that unless Apple keeps old generation devices at lower prices which I find hard to believe...
tigress666
May 4, 02:58 PM
Anyway, what happens if you whole hard drive dies?
What if you want to reinstall everything from scratch?
There is just too many what ifs
I thought about this and while I think having a CD is better for these reasons, I don't think it would leave you up a creek without a paddle.
Either you have an OS that supports Mac App store so you'd have a CD that would at least install that OS (and therefore you could install old OS and go back to Mac app store and reinstall Lion) or you'd have to buy the Lion CD anyways (but in this case if you lose the Lion CD you may be w/out Lion).
So, while the app store does have the advantage that if you buy through them, long as you have the CD from the previous OS (and probably not too expensive to buy a CD off of ebay, don't know, haven't checked) you can re install Lion. WHere as if you buy the CD and lose it, you'll have to buy Lion all over again (and I am betting Lion won't be as "cheap" as Snow Leopard as it isn't considered an incremental upgrade).
But... it also means more hassle if your hard drive does crash cause you'll have to install an OS twice.
What if you want to reinstall everything from scratch?
There is just too many what ifs
I thought about this and while I think having a CD is better for these reasons, I don't think it would leave you up a creek without a paddle.
Either you have an OS that supports Mac App store so you'd have a CD that would at least install that OS (and therefore you could install old OS and go back to Mac app store and reinstall Lion) or you'd have to buy the Lion CD anyways (but in this case if you lose the Lion CD you may be w/out Lion).
So, while the app store does have the advantage that if you buy through them, long as you have the CD from the previous OS (and probably not too expensive to buy a CD off of ebay, don't know, haven't checked) you can re install Lion. WHere as if you buy the CD and lose it, you'll have to buy Lion all over again (and I am betting Lion won't be as "cheap" as Snow Leopard as it isn't considered an incremental upgrade).
But... it also means more hassle if your hard drive does crash cause you'll have to install an OS twice.
ChrisTX
Apr 8, 07:29 AM
There were many tablets before the iPad. Just that they all sucked and mostly tried to use PC chips, leading to extremely short battery life, being slow, and hundreds of other factors causing them to sell in very small amounts. But it is true that Apple did the right thing in their innovation.
Were there truly tablets or just netvirtibles? There's a huge difference, and a reason why those never took off. Again no one wanted any of those because they all suck. People now don't want a tablet computer, they want an iPad.
Were there truly tablets or just netvirtibles? There's a huge difference, and a reason why those never took off. Again no one wanted any of those because they all suck. People now don't want a tablet computer, they want an iPad.
Erwin-Br
Apr 26, 02:38 PM
Once again, the seperating into 'smartphone' and 'tablet' markets makes little sense.
As the capabilities of both devices grow we'll soon find that the only difference between the two is screen size.
That's bending the definition of a phone to the extreme. I can make phone calls on my Mac Pro too. It's only a teeny bit bulkier than my phone :rolleyes:. Should I consider my mac Pro as phone? Of course not.
Look. A tablet is not a phone, okay? Nobody is going to carry an iPad in his pants all day.
A tablet is much closer to being a replacement to a laptop than to being a phone.
As the capabilities of both devices grow we'll soon find that the only difference between the two is screen size.
That's bending the definition of a phone to the extreme. I can make phone calls on my Mac Pro too. It's only a teeny bit bulkier than my phone :rolleyes:. Should I consider my mac Pro as phone? Of course not.
Look. A tablet is not a phone, okay? Nobody is going to carry an iPad in his pants all day.
A tablet is much closer to being a replacement to a laptop than to being a phone.
Thataboy
Jul 30, 11:54 AM
If this ever happens, I would bet the farm that Apple will do it with their own MVNO. I would make a reasonable guess that this MVNO would be based on Sprint.
In every facet, Apple is about the fully-inegrated Apple end-to-end solution. The one time I can think of where they tried it (ROKR), it was a dismal failure. Why would Apple create an unbelievable phone, just to have the likes of VERIZON cripple every feature on it?
I would guess Sprint because they are the only company that has reasonably-priced high-speed data. Apple surely would want access to a high-speed data network, and Sprint's Power Vision is very cheap and already fairly widespread.
I think the killer feature would be iChat Mobile... To be able to video chat with your friends on the go -- people would eat it up. I don't know why no one has done it yet, as it seems the technology is already there.
Anyway, it will be interesting to see how this all plays out, if it ever does at all. I don't think there have been any successful MVNOs, but Apple is the one who could pull it off.
In every facet, Apple is about the fully-inegrated Apple end-to-end solution. The one time I can think of where they tried it (ROKR), it was a dismal failure. Why would Apple create an unbelievable phone, just to have the likes of VERIZON cripple every feature on it?
I would guess Sprint because they are the only company that has reasonably-priced high-speed data. Apple surely would want access to a high-speed data network, and Sprint's Power Vision is very cheap and already fairly widespread.
I think the killer feature would be iChat Mobile... To be able to video chat with your friends on the go -- people would eat it up. I don't know why no one has done it yet, as it seems the technology is already there.
Anyway, it will be interesting to see how this all plays out, if it ever does at all. I don't think there have been any successful MVNOs, but Apple is the one who could pull it off.
commander.data
May 6, 12:35 AM
Perhaps in 2 years ARM will have architectures that will offer the performance levels expected of desktops and laptops, but at the same time Intel's designs are getting more efficient all the time. So by the time ARM is ready to negate Intel's performance advantage, Intel will be ready to negate ARM's power advantage. I don't really see any advantage in switching Macs to ARM.
What's more while ARM may be appropriate for laptops for efficiency reasons, what is Apple going to do about the Mac Pro? Accept reduced performance, discontinue it, keep it on Intel processors and support 2 architectures in parallel?
And the Intel transition was eased because PowerPC is a more strict and well defined standard so is easier to emulate. x86 however is pretty much a mess that's yielded better performance over time because of increasing numbers of features being tacked on, but won't be efficient to emulate. So an x86/x64>ARM transition won't be as smooth as PowerPC>x86/x64 was.
What's more while ARM may be appropriate for laptops for efficiency reasons, what is Apple going to do about the Mac Pro? Accept reduced performance, discontinue it, keep it on Intel processors and support 2 architectures in parallel?
And the Intel transition was eased because PowerPC is a more strict and well defined standard so is easier to emulate. x86 however is pretty much a mess that's yielded better performance over time because of increasing numbers of features being tacked on, but won't be efficient to emulate. So an x86/x64>ARM transition won't be as smooth as PowerPC>x86/x64 was.
Daveoc64
May 4, 03:08 PM
Is everyone missing the "Preferred" in the headline of this thread? Preferred does not me "only" or "required" or "mandatory."
We're not yet at the point where digitial distribution is a feasible option for everyone, but Apple needs to take the steps towards it now before the rest of the industry passes by.
My opposition to this isn't because I think Digital Distribution is bad (the copy of Windows 7 I'm writing this on was downloaded, legally I might add, from Microsoft), it's because of how Apple is offering it.
I was able to download a .iso of Windows and install it how I wanted to. I was able to back up the .iso to an external hard drive and also to burn a copy of it.
The App Store (unless they change things) wouldn't allow that. I would have no problem with this if Apple included a way to create a DVD or USB installer from the download.
We're not yet at the point where digitial distribution is a feasible option for everyone, but Apple needs to take the steps towards it now before the rest of the industry passes by.
My opposition to this isn't because I think Digital Distribution is bad (the copy of Windows 7 I'm writing this on was downloaded, legally I might add, from Microsoft), it's because of how Apple is offering it.
I was able to download a .iso of Windows and install it how I wanted to. I was able to back up the .iso to an external hard drive and also to burn a copy of it.
The App Store (unless they change things) wouldn't allow that. I would have no problem with this if Apple included a way to create a DVD or USB installer from the download.
Object-X
Nov 22, 01:32 AM
The problem with Palm is they are on their way out. They got what? Treo? How long can that last? PDAs are over. So it's all about the phones now.
They have to be worried. Apple has the midas touch. Whatever Apple get's into they change. Apple has a way of innovation that changes all of the dynamics. They weren't the first with the iPod, but their entrance into digital music has changed the whole music industry, not just digital music players.
Apple could very well do the same thing with an Apple branded phone. Integrating it into the whole computer experiance in ways we can't even predict. To claim it takes years to make a phone "right" is just proof that Palm has very little to offer.
The future of phone technology is going to change rapidly and dramically over the next few years. Apple can make billions of dollars in this market. They are going to go for it, and they will leverage their existing products to make it happen and to offer something new. Everyone is fixated on the iPod, but it's the integration with OS X that has the most interesting potential.
Video iChat on your phone? Internet services? Email? Address? Calendar? Have you used a Palm or Blackberry? They are OK for what they do, but they could be so much better...a lot better. What they are missing is exactly what Apple has to offer -- and it isn't music.
They have to be worried. Apple has the midas touch. Whatever Apple get's into they change. Apple has a way of innovation that changes all of the dynamics. They weren't the first with the iPod, but their entrance into digital music has changed the whole music industry, not just digital music players.
Apple could very well do the same thing with an Apple branded phone. Integrating it into the whole computer experiance in ways we can't even predict. To claim it takes years to make a phone "right" is just proof that Palm has very little to offer.
The future of phone technology is going to change rapidly and dramically over the next few years. Apple can make billions of dollars in this market. They are going to go for it, and they will leverage their existing products to make it happen and to offer something new. Everyone is fixated on the iPod, but it's the integration with OS X that has the most interesting potential.
Video iChat on your phone? Internet services? Email? Address? Calendar? Have you used a Palm or Blackberry? They are OK for what they do, but they could be so much better...a lot better. What they are missing is exactly what Apple has to offer -- and it isn't music.
emotion
Nov 22, 05:56 AM
I think T-Mobile might fit this bill, at least in the US. I remember seeing a story here earlier in the year where T-Mobile said its vision was aligned with Apple (but not necessarily a partnership; abc article here (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/ZDM/story?id=2537247)).
Interesting reading that abc article and fits with my impression of T-Mobile in the UK too.
I'm definitely not signing up for a new phone yet! :)
Interesting reading that abc article and fits with my impression of T-Mobile in the UK too.
I'm definitely not signing up for a new phone yet! :)
aog
Sep 15, 04:38 PM
I hope the 2.33GHz processor comes standard in the 17" since it�s the highest-end model...:D
nuckinfutz
May 8, 06:49 PM
I always have to laugh at things like this. It's akin to people complaining about having to pay $50 for 12 months of Xbox Live.
$99 a year is a pittance for MoblieMe; break that down over 12 months and it's roughly $8 a month. I don't know about the rest of you, but I know that I easily blow $8 a week on things I don't even remember from week-to-week, let alone setting $8 a month to the side.
It's the human way. We all know we waste money on other things. I have my sports websites that I often pay about $10 to keep up on current events. Being a working class bloke means that a certain amount of disposable income comes with the territory.
Everyone's needs are so different. If you have one device MobileMe isn't going to make much sense. If you have a couple of Macs, an iPod Touch, and iPhone or iPad then suddenly without MobileMe you're relying on web based tools (and the weakness they come with) or your spending a lot of redundant effort in data entry.
For me I'm at a point where I try to get things organized. My Safari bookmarks scream "Obsessive Compulsive Disorder" though I'm not an OCD person in every facet of my life. What this means in the context of MobileMe is that I can be out and get notified of of an interesting web address. I add it to my phone and voila before I get home the bookmark is on my Mac where it should be.
My motto is "never input data twice"
$99 a year is a pittance for MoblieMe; break that down over 12 months and it's roughly $8 a month. I don't know about the rest of you, but I know that I easily blow $8 a week on things I don't even remember from week-to-week, let alone setting $8 a month to the side.
It's the human way. We all know we waste money on other things. I have my sports websites that I often pay about $10 to keep up on current events. Being a working class bloke means that a certain amount of disposable income comes with the territory.
Everyone's needs are so different. If you have one device MobileMe isn't going to make much sense. If you have a couple of Macs, an iPod Touch, and iPhone or iPad then suddenly without MobileMe you're relying on web based tools (and the weakness they come with) or your spending a lot of redundant effort in data entry.
For me I'm at a point where I try to get things organized. My Safari bookmarks scream "Obsessive Compulsive Disorder" though I'm not an OCD person in every facet of my life. What this means in the context of MobileMe is that I can be out and get notified of of an interesting web address. I add it to my phone and voila before I get home the bookmark is on my Mac where it should be.
My motto is "never input data twice"
corywoolf
Aug 4, 01:08 AM
I'm gonna go on record and say they will NOT intro new MBP at wwdc. Some sales of the current MBP are better than none and if they they intro a new one they will not sell any and probably just take pre orders. Not gonna happen. They will wait until late August or early September to announce them when they are actually ready.
word
word
islanders
Jul 23, 11:36 PM
You missed my entire point - Apple can't put off updates just because "sales are strong." The "other guys" (Dell, HP, Sony, etc.) upgrade to new technology as soon as they can ramp up production, and Apple won't be, and can't be, "late to the dance" with technology that they all have simultaneous access to. Particularly CPU's. Graphics chips .... well, there they may fudge a bit, especially with 2 brands to select from, but not processor upgrades.
There's no way we'll wait until "November/December," unless Intel fails to deliver Merom, as predicted. If any laptops have Merom sooner, so will Apple.
:cool:
iBorg
I think you have a reluctance to find some common ground, as was suggested in my previous post.
I said November.
You said �September Maybe.�
Which leaves August unlikely, and December pushing it.
However I will stand by my original post, that if I was planning to upgrade to a MBP Merom, I would be prepared to wait until December. As most experts have predicted a switch before the new year.
Otherwise I think everyone understands both schools of thought here, which have already been suggested numerous times in previous post.
Although, I think Apple will hurt themselves more in the long run if they announce an update and can�t meet demand.
:cool:
There's no way we'll wait until "November/December," unless Intel fails to deliver Merom, as predicted. If any laptops have Merom sooner, so will Apple.
:cool:
iBorg
I think you have a reluctance to find some common ground, as was suggested in my previous post.
I said November.
You said �September Maybe.�
Which leaves August unlikely, and December pushing it.
However I will stand by my original post, that if I was planning to upgrade to a MBP Merom, I would be prepared to wait until December. As most experts have predicted a switch before the new year.
Otherwise I think everyone understands both schools of thought here, which have already been suggested numerous times in previous post.
Although, I think Apple will hurt themselves more in the long run if they announce an update and can�t meet demand.
:cool:
BWhaler
Sep 17, 01:49 AM
Hello everyone,
this is my first post, but I've been reading you all for a while now. I'm waiting for the MBP merom like most of the people here, but do you think there a possibility to see new Displays as well at Photokina? Maybe built-in iSight?
No one knows for sure, but I doubt it. The displays just got a spec bump and price drop a month ago.
this is my first post, but I've been reading you all for a while now. I'm waiting for the MBP merom like most of the people here, but do you think there a possibility to see new Displays as well at Photokina? Maybe built-in iSight?
No one knows for sure, but I doubt it. The displays just got a spec bump and price drop a month ago.
iFanboy
Mar 30, 06:24 PM
Well clearly you havent used lion. There are a lot of changes, i thought the developer preview was solid for that early a release. Its looking VERY PROMISING.
I was talking about the UI. If you are too, what are these "a lot" of changes to the UI? :confused:
I was talking about the UI. If you are too, what are these "a lot" of changes to the UI? :confused:
topherchris
Sep 11, 03:31 PM
Nobody else seems interested, so they must have already seen it, but I have not. That's pretty interesting.
no. THIS is interesting (though old)
http://mammals.org/
no. THIS is interesting (though old)
http://mammals.org/