KnightWRX
Apr 24, 04:18 AM
Retina 27'' LCD should be 7200x4080 pixels. I think we can't expect it in near future... but i'd love to see it :)
No, it wouldn't. Please understand what Retina means ;) :
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/06/10/resolving-the-iphone-resolution/
For all we know, the 27" already is a Retina display. It depends on what distance you find normal sitting away from it.
No, it wouldn't. Please understand what Retina means ;) :
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/06/10/resolving-the-iphone-resolution/
For all we know, the 27" already is a Retina display. It depends on what distance you find normal sitting away from it.
tundrabuggy
Apr 18, 03:22 PM
Can only be 1 reason, Apple are worried.
If they felt totally confident in their product then they would not feel any threat from others and need to try something like this on.
Absolutely not True......they MUST sue or they lose rights to the patent. Its the way the system works
If they felt totally confident in their product then they would not feel any threat from others and need to try something like this on.
Absolutely not True......they MUST sue or they lose rights to the patent. Its the way the system works
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All this talk about Palm needing to modernize their OS, or it is outdated, or needing to re-write is absolutely hilarious.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.
thisisahughes
Apr 5, 03:21 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8G4)
I feel like Apple is making some odd decesions lately...
I feel like Apple is making some odd decesions lately...
ECUpirate44
Mar 28, 10:39 AM
Most phone consumers do not get a new phone on the day their contracts expire. That's yet another geek misconception about how the world works.
I'd be shocked if Apple loses "many" of their customers to Android in 2011. Why on earth would they switch when they already have an iPhone that they love?
I'll give you that. I should have said "some." In any case, I still think it's something to consider.
I'd be shocked if Apple loses "many" of their customers to Android in 2011. Why on earth would they switch when they already have an iPhone that they love?
I'll give you that. I should have said "some." In any case, I still think it's something to consider.
EDH667
Jan 25, 07:36 AM
Regarding using a case with the tom tom kit--I bought a casemate (comes shiny and somewhat rubberized) and it fits fine in my tomtom car kit.
check out the website. maybe it's a solution for you.
I have used the Case-Mate Barley-There and am currently using the Marware MicroShell with the TomTom car kit. They both work fine.
check out the website. maybe it's a solution for you.
I have used the Case-Mate Barley-There and am currently using the Marware MicroShell with the TomTom car kit. They both work fine.
smoketetsu
May 6, 08:11 AM
Oh this rumor rearing its ugly head again. First of all is intel really stagnating so much that they would want to make this switch?
Also doesn't anyone realize that just because an OS runs on a different architecture that doesn't mean all the apps made for it will suddenly run with 100% compatibility and speed? When I say this I mean that for Windows as well. So Windows 8 is going to have an ARM version. Good luck running Crysis 2 on that (for starters.. just an example).
Also simpler applications may just need a recompile. But there are many others that would need much more than just a simple recompile. There are also many many others that wouldn't get either treatment and simply wont perform well or have good compatibility (or even work at all) for a long long time if ever. I know some developers who probably would laugh at you if you told them it'll just be a simple recompile for them. That kool-aid wasn't true in the transition to x86 either. We still have software that hasn't made the transition that would benefit from it but will simply by orphaned when rosetta is killed off in Lion. I hear people fretting because of that and having to scramble to get x86 versions of that software whether it be through bootcamp or WINE.
Speaking of which; when apple switched to x86 they gained a lot of compatibility benefits that would be dumped if\when they switch to ARM. When going from PPC to x86 I quickly started finding more software becoming available or possible to get going due to the compatibility increase of the new architecture. We would be taking a step or more backwards with ARM. Like for example there was quite a bit of software had intel specific optimizations or functions that became available for use in OS X when updating them to intel or universal binaries... this includes Windows software that ran very well because no actual emulation was involved.
Of course many casual users wouldn't care about any of that.... and there's a lot of front facing iOS software that could be easily ported. Like if an applications's engine is already available for both it's already easy to make a Mac and iOS version of the application. But the whole platform would become a lot less appealing for someone like me. I never used rosetta much as on my Core based Mac it really only worked well for me for the simplest things... like a text application I would use to post to a blog.... some application with 2D graphics.... CPU emulation tends to be dog slow and this is on the currently best performing desktop CPUs.
So you may look forward to this possibly happening but I don't. I guess I could see Apple doing it especially since they seem to be keen on having a post-PC world. But in my opinion they'd more likely dump the Mac altogether and have an iOS dominated future in the cards and if you want a Personal Computer you have to get a non-apple PC.
It's good for a company to keep its options open but just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. But then again I guess I could see them doing it and waving goodbye to those who don't like it.
Also doesn't anyone realize that just because an OS runs on a different architecture that doesn't mean all the apps made for it will suddenly run with 100% compatibility and speed? When I say this I mean that for Windows as well. So Windows 8 is going to have an ARM version. Good luck running Crysis 2 on that (for starters.. just an example).
Also simpler applications may just need a recompile. But there are many others that would need much more than just a simple recompile. There are also many many others that wouldn't get either treatment and simply wont perform well or have good compatibility (or even work at all) for a long long time if ever. I know some developers who probably would laugh at you if you told them it'll just be a simple recompile for them. That kool-aid wasn't true in the transition to x86 either. We still have software that hasn't made the transition that would benefit from it but will simply by orphaned when rosetta is killed off in Lion. I hear people fretting because of that and having to scramble to get x86 versions of that software whether it be through bootcamp or WINE.
Speaking of which; when apple switched to x86 they gained a lot of compatibility benefits that would be dumped if\when they switch to ARM. When going from PPC to x86 I quickly started finding more software becoming available or possible to get going due to the compatibility increase of the new architecture. We would be taking a step or more backwards with ARM. Like for example there was quite a bit of software had intel specific optimizations or functions that became available for use in OS X when updating them to intel or universal binaries... this includes Windows software that ran very well because no actual emulation was involved.
Of course many casual users wouldn't care about any of that.... and there's a lot of front facing iOS software that could be easily ported. Like if an applications's engine is already available for both it's already easy to make a Mac and iOS version of the application. But the whole platform would become a lot less appealing for someone like me. I never used rosetta much as on my Core based Mac it really only worked well for me for the simplest things... like a text application I would use to post to a blog.... some application with 2D graphics.... CPU emulation tends to be dog slow and this is on the currently best performing desktop CPUs.
So you may look forward to this possibly happening but I don't. I guess I could see Apple doing it especially since they seem to be keen on having a post-PC world. But in my opinion they'd more likely dump the Mac altogether and have an iOS dominated future in the cards and if you want a Personal Computer you have to get a non-apple PC.
It's good for a company to keep its options open but just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. But then again I guess I could see them doing it and waving goodbye to those who don't like it.
Cinch
Jul 30, 10:26 AM
Yeah tell me about it.
How much does it take to break a Verizon contract again...?
For me it is $175 which is no big deal if you are a early adopter of tech. A more likely scenario that a lot of people here ellude to is for Cingular, T-mobile, Verizon etc. to adopt the phone, in which case we'll only have to pay for the phone. Of course expect premium price, which for a stock holder is not a bad scenario!
Cinch
How much does it take to break a Verizon contract again...?
For me it is $175 which is no big deal if you are a early adopter of tech. A more likely scenario that a lot of people here ellude to is for Cingular, T-mobile, Verizon etc. to adopt the phone, in which case we'll only have to pay for the phone. Of course expect premium price, which for a stock holder is not a bad scenario!
Cinch
iStudentUK
Apr 11, 07:49 AM
Where did you get that I'm not in the 288 camp ? That is the proper answer, the equation is not ambiguous.
I know you are in the 288 camp. It's odd we agree but don't at the same time!
You say the answer is 288.
I say the likely answer is 288.
I can't go so far as to say the answer is 288 as I don't think it is correct to take / at face value. I don't think that is what the author intended.
EDIT- Just noticed my avatar shows this! People using horizontal lines not diagonal. Feel silly I didn't notice earlier!
I know you are in the 288 camp. It's odd we agree but don't at the same time!
You say the answer is 288.
I say the likely answer is 288.
I can't go so far as to say the answer is 288 as I don't think it is correct to take / at face value. I don't think that is what the author intended.
EDIT- Just noticed my avatar shows this! People using horizontal lines not diagonal. Feel silly I didn't notice earlier!
Smellovision
Apr 26, 04:03 PM
If it's as good as Ping, I'm IN!
backinblack875
Mar 29, 02:42 PM
They exist for the real music addicts. I really believe that if there is an iPod that will be the first to disappear it will be the Touch.
the touch is the best selling ipod...it would be the last to disappear
the touch is the best selling ipod...it would be the last to disappear
extraextra
Jul 21, 03:02 PM
Now all the MBP's need are new enclosures, and I'm sold!
MB's aren't going to get Merom so soon because they've only been out for a little while (as opposed to the MBP's) and I think there needs to be a bigger differentiation between the MB's and MBP's.
MB's aren't going to get Merom so soon because they've only been out for a little while (as opposed to the MBP's) and I think there needs to be a bigger differentiation between the MB's and MBP's.
techpr
May 7, 11:58 AM
Beter not be free or the SPAMMERS will get a new domain name to SPAM with. If Apple is going to do something is lower the price but NOT free.
My MobileMe experience has been great.
My MobileMe experience has been great.
iScott428
Mar 29, 03:41 PM
The reason that simple, brainless product assembly is not done in the US has nothing to due with low quality. It is due to lower manufacturing costs in China, which has no regulations.
There is no evidence at all that American-made products are of lower quality than any other country's products. (Is there any fighter jet better than the American-made F-16 or F-22?)
Right I get that, and thats the point. On the military note does any country spend/waste more money than us on our armed forces. Not even close.
There is no evidence at all that American-made products are of lower quality than any other country's products. (Is there any fighter jet better than the American-made F-16 or F-22?)
Right I get that, and thats the point. On the military note does any country spend/waste more money than us on our armed forces. Not even close.
dba7dba
Apr 26, 03:13 PM
They will activate it for you in store so that shouldn't have been an issue.
what about updates?
what about updates?
JoeG4
Nov 22, 03:14 PM
Palm makes nothing but garbage.
The management of the company, in fact, was so pathetic that they ended up selling out to big MS and making PPC-based phones like everyone else. Ever since that day, I have no interest for any of the garbage they make - and I was lusting after their stupid overpriced and ugly PDA phones before they made that decision.
The management of the company, in fact, was so pathetic that they ended up selling out to big MS and making PPC-based phones like everyone else. Ever since that day, I have no interest for any of the garbage they make - and I was lusting after their stupid overpriced and ugly PDA phones before they made that decision.
Adam-
Apr 20, 06:14 AM
You can't be sure about this.
Better battery = longer Battery life :)
Better battery = longer Battery life :)
xPismo
Sep 11, 04:07 PM
...No prob with a H.264 at 2-6 mpbs. Files for a 90 minute movie at 700 mb (near-DVD-quality...I just hope for a renting solution as this is what people do with MOVIES.... If they have another solution: bring it on; it's gonna make sense.
Nicely put. Shocking to believe what modern compression and modern (read lower) expectations of the average film watcher have allowed distriution solutions to do.
I'm expecting a slick, consumer oriented solution to the video portion of the iTunes music store, but I'm not holding my breath for a 'movie' store or movie rental store solution.
At a compression value I would accecpt, files will still be to big for the internet of today / average power of a computer today / the HD's of today.
Sorry to be a wet blanket. We shall see.
Nicely put. Shocking to believe what modern compression and modern (read lower) expectations of the average film watcher have allowed distriution solutions to do.
I'm expecting a slick, consumer oriented solution to the video portion of the iTunes music store, but I'm not holding my breath for a 'movie' store or movie rental store solution.
At a compression value I would accecpt, files will still be to big for the internet of today / average power of a computer today / the HD's of today.
Sorry to be a wet blanket. We shall see.
manu chao
Jul 30, 12:20 PM
It's true...but I don't see it changing anytime soon. Americans are used to getting free or cheap phones when they sign up for a carrier contract. The carriers subsidize the cost so that expensive phones can be had for <$200. They RARELY pay full retail price ($300-$700) on a phone...mainly only when they break theirs and still have time on their contract. The way I understand it, the rest of the world pays full retail everytime they want a new phone. Is this right?
In Europe, it is pretty much the same as in the US, most people get their cell phone with a contract.
In Europe, it is pretty much the same as in the US, most people get their cell phone with a contract.
LanPhantom
Apr 7, 11:47 AM
I would imagine we aren't getting the full story here. Companies would jump at the opportunity to produce more products. I don't care how it's done, 24hr operations, add capacity to their facilities, etc.
I think RIM's offer to the companies wasn't as good as Apples and the companies said "Well, thanks for the offer, but we just don't have the room" Considering the longevity of the RIM Playbook is still questionable, why would a company commit to supplying a short term product. At least with Apple, they feel comfortable looking long term and committing to building a TON of them. Knowing they won't be left with a supply line dead in the water.
Again, if the TRUE demand exists, producers will produce. It's all about Money.
-LanPhantom
WOW - BC2009, you hit my nail on the head right before I did!!! Nice job!
I think RIM's offer to the companies wasn't as good as Apples and the companies said "Well, thanks for the offer, but we just don't have the room" Considering the longevity of the RIM Playbook is still questionable, why would a company commit to supplying a short term product. At least with Apple, they feel comfortable looking long term and committing to building a TON of them. Knowing they won't be left with a supply line dead in the water.
Again, if the TRUE demand exists, producers will produce. It's all about Money.
-LanPhantom
WOW - BC2009, you hit my nail on the head right before I did!!! Nice job!
Tomtomnovice
Jan 25, 01:04 PM
I asked Tomtom support about leaving the iPhone car kit in the car at night in the winter (I live in Ohio). Here is the answer I got.
The operating and storage temperatures for the TomTom devices are as follows:
-4�F to +140�F / -20�C to +60�C
So it can withstand the extreme temperatures inside the car. The only recommendation we would like to make is to keep the LCD screen of the device away from the direct sunlight, as it might damage the LCD screen.
The operating and storage temperatures for the TomTom devices are as follows:
-4�F to +140�F / -20�C to +60�C
So it can withstand the extreme temperatures inside the car. The only recommendation we would like to make is to keep the LCD screen of the device away from the direct sunlight, as it might damage the LCD screen.
Genetheninja
Apr 26, 04:25 PM
One interesting thing to note. Apple held 25% of recent acquirers with 2 phone models. The iPhone 4 and iPhone 3GS. They are also on only 2 carriers, and have only been with Verizon for part of the time leading up to the march survey. Android however is on dozens of handsets and all four US carriers. I would say apple is doing amazingly well when you consider those specifics.
I am not worried about iOS not having a larger chunk of the market, I am blown away that it has 25%.
Took the words right out of my mouth!!!:)
I am not worried about iOS not having a larger chunk of the market, I am blown away that it has 25%.
Took the words right out of my mouth!!!:)
KREX725
Jul 29, 10:33 PM
While I'm sure if it is true, it'd be a cool phone, but it just seems like one of those rumours that comes up occasionally and then goes away, just like the Tablet Mac.
Normally I would agree, but then Steve hit us with the Intel switch and shook up all my feelings about long-term rumors that come and go.
Normally I would agree, but then Steve hit us with the Intel switch and shook up all my feelings about long-term rumors that come and go.
wclyffe
Dec 11, 10:52 AM
With regards to using Bluetooth for handsfree driving. My car is very quiet and I and my callers had no problem hearing each other. I just hold the main button and do voice dialing. Piece of cake.
LOL I had the audio cord connected to the car kit but was not using audio to play music (aux was not on) and I couldn't figure out why Navigon wasn't taling to me. When I put radio on in Aux mode the instructions came through the car speakers. When I used ipod to play music and had GPS on both come through the car speakers with music volume being lowered when voice directions were being given.
All in all I am very pleased with the kit and the way it performs.
ticman, thanks for all the info!
Question: You obviously used the included disk to mount the car kit to. Does that disk hold onto your dash really securely with the adhesive they supply?
Also, when you are using Voice Control, do you have to reach around the back of the car kit to press the button to activate it, or can you just press the Home button on the iPhone?
Lastly, I have to use an FM transmitter in my car so I was going to plug it into the jack on the car kit and transmit music to my radio. It sounds like the Navigon instructions will come out my radio speakers not the little speaker on the car kit, but when I make a phone call it will use the car kit speaker. Right? Hope so, as I don't really want my phone calls blasted through my speakers.
LOL I had the audio cord connected to the car kit but was not using audio to play music (aux was not on) and I couldn't figure out why Navigon wasn't taling to me. When I put radio on in Aux mode the instructions came through the car speakers. When I used ipod to play music and had GPS on both come through the car speakers with music volume being lowered when voice directions were being given.
All in all I am very pleased with the kit and the way it performs.
ticman, thanks for all the info!
Question: You obviously used the included disk to mount the car kit to. Does that disk hold onto your dash really securely with the adhesive they supply?
Also, when you are using Voice Control, do you have to reach around the back of the car kit to press the button to activate it, or can you just press the Home button on the iPhone?
Lastly, I have to use an FM transmitter in my car so I was going to plug it into the jack on the car kit and transmit music to my radio. It sounds like the Navigon instructions will come out my radio speakers not the little speaker on the car kit, but when I make a phone call it will use the car kit speaker. Right? Hope so, as I don't really want my phone calls blasted through my speakers.