28monkeys
Apr 23, 06:21 PM
Bogus story because Apple would never fit graphics cards capable of outputting at that res in the iMacs or laptops. Plus I don't think any single monitor can have that resolution that you can buy today?
Do you understand technology?
Do you understand technology?
iliketyla
Mar 29, 01:36 PM
Are you willing to pay more for your Mac gadgets so they can be made here?
I'd pay a premium for products manufactured in the US.
Products might be more expensive, but there would be more Americans employed. As much are there is a downside to producing here, there is also an upside.
I'd pay a premium for products manufactured in the US.
Products might be more expensive, but there would be more Americans employed. As much are there is a downside to producing here, there is also an upside.
KindredMAC
May 7, 01:13 PM
I've had the service for over 4 years and I have never paid full price.
I would not mind if they lowered the price to say $49/annually or even tiered pricing, but all out free scares me a little.
I would not mind if they lowered the price to say $49/annually or even tiered pricing, but all out free scares me a little.
Popeye206
Apr 18, 03:12 PM
I love the negative comments... you don't even know the details of the lawsuit and what IP Apple is trying to protect. You do know, that is the whole point of patenting things is so you can protect it.
Obviously, there are companies out there that are patent trolls, but a company trying to protect IP is different and valid if they have a valid claim.
It's good to see Apple doing it so soon. Some companies like the recent Kodak lawsuit against Apple and others, looks valid, but they waited years until their were millions of devices out there using their IP. That is low.
If Apple gets damages based on Tab sales, they'll probably see $20 from the suit! :p
Obviously, there are companies out there that are patent trolls, but a company trying to protect IP is different and valid if they have a valid claim.
It's good to see Apple doing it so soon. Some companies like the recent Kodak lawsuit against Apple and others, looks valid, but they waited years until their were millions of devices out there using their IP. That is low.
If Apple gets damages based on Tab sales, they'll probably see $20 from the suit! :p
CalBoy
May 5, 05:49 PM
Talking about the cost of swtiching, I might just add� Stepping out onto the moon cost a pretty penny too. I guess beating the Soviets to bragging rights in space was more important than implementing common sense on the ground.
What does that have to do with anything? :confused:
Even if this was somehow relevant, yes, it probably was more important to achieve a scientific feat at that point in time. The Apollo missions created generations of people who became interested in science, raised educational standards nationwide, and brought forth thousands of advancements that we still use in our daily lives.
Hang on� You're not distancing yourself from the illiterate masses now? I thought you agreed with them? ;)
Not with their reasoning. My scientific literacy is pretty good, and I don't have an inherent mistrust of science which many Americans do. This makes them resist things that are advocated by the scientific community, whether it's evolution, vaccination, or evidence-based medicine. So when scientists clamor about changing to the metric system, it raises two questions in the minds of people; 1) Why should I trust this person? and 2) Is the change really necessary?
I don't doubt scientists when they advocate for the metric system, in science. Howeve, since most of the advantages of the metric system are really reserved to the sciences, the question of whether or not everything in life should be metric really isn't a scientific one; it's an economic and convenience one. In my daily life I do not need to easily convert between the mass of water and its volume or take temperatures relative to the boiling point of water.
Well, I assume the US population ain't getting any smaller the longer you put it off.
No, but that doesn't mean that we should transition now either. It all depends on the ease of transition. This is why I think long term transitioning is the only real option available. Do things piecemeal in order of greatest economic return, and if there is no economic return on a particular item, forget it. There's no point in switching to something that is going only cost money; at some point there needs to be a positive return for it to make sense.
What does that have to do with anything? :confused:
Even if this was somehow relevant, yes, it probably was more important to achieve a scientific feat at that point in time. The Apollo missions created generations of people who became interested in science, raised educational standards nationwide, and brought forth thousands of advancements that we still use in our daily lives.
Hang on� You're not distancing yourself from the illiterate masses now? I thought you agreed with them? ;)
Not with their reasoning. My scientific literacy is pretty good, and I don't have an inherent mistrust of science which many Americans do. This makes them resist things that are advocated by the scientific community, whether it's evolution, vaccination, or evidence-based medicine. So when scientists clamor about changing to the metric system, it raises two questions in the minds of people; 1) Why should I trust this person? and 2) Is the change really necessary?
I don't doubt scientists when they advocate for the metric system, in science. Howeve, since most of the advantages of the metric system are really reserved to the sciences, the question of whether or not everything in life should be metric really isn't a scientific one; it's an economic and convenience one. In my daily life I do not need to easily convert between the mass of water and its volume or take temperatures relative to the boiling point of water.
Well, I assume the US population ain't getting any smaller the longer you put it off.
No, but that doesn't mean that we should transition now either. It all depends on the ease of transition. This is why I think long term transitioning is the only real option available. Do things piecemeal in order of greatest economic return, and if there is no economic return on a particular item, forget it. There's no point in switching to something that is going only cost money; at some point there needs to be a positive return for it to make sense.
Yamcha
May 4, 03:30 PM
What I don't understand is even if it's distributed through the Mac App Store, does Apple expect us to burn it on dvd or make a bootable usb?
I don't know if every mac user will even be able to do that, this may work for those looking to upgrade, but a fresh install will require dvd/usb..
I don't know if every mac user will even be able to do that, this may work for those looking to upgrade, but a fresh install will require dvd/usb..
mrkramer
Apr 16, 12:37 PM
How do you feel about inflation? To me, inflation is the most regressive tax.
There is also the incorrect notion that "spending" is what drives an economy, that if a rich person doesn't "spend" their money then he or she is not benefiting the economy. What our economy currently needs is less spending and more saving. Savings and investments create jobs, not consumption.
First of all, some inflation is ok, and normal as long as it doesn't get too high. And how does money sitting in a bank account, or under my mattress create jobs? If nobody is buying anything then the economy goes down, that has been shown many times.
I'd almost agree but if you look at the Forbes flat income tax plan, the plan has a very generous initial income exemption before the no-deductions flat income tax kicks in (somewhere between US$42,000 to US$44,000 for a family of two adults and two dependents). As such, that right there makes this plan progressive, since low-income households are no longer subject to income tax.
And best of all, with essentially all those complex deductions, exemptions, credits, etc. no longer in the tax code, it means income tax forms will be simple enough that the whole thing for most taxpayers will be not much more than a postcard! :D Just the savings in income tax compliance costs would mean potentially hundreds of billions of dollars now can be used for more productive purposes.
ok, so maybe it could work with a high enough exemption, although I think $44,000 is a little too low. But you said get rid of all income tax and replace it with a consumption tax, that is even more regressive than a flat tax unless you limit it to only certain items at which point it doesn't bring in enough money to be viable.
There is also the incorrect notion that "spending" is what drives an economy, that if a rich person doesn't "spend" their money then he or she is not benefiting the economy. What our economy currently needs is less spending and more saving. Savings and investments create jobs, not consumption.
First of all, some inflation is ok, and normal as long as it doesn't get too high. And how does money sitting in a bank account, or under my mattress create jobs? If nobody is buying anything then the economy goes down, that has been shown many times.
I'd almost agree but if you look at the Forbes flat income tax plan, the plan has a very generous initial income exemption before the no-deductions flat income tax kicks in (somewhere between US$42,000 to US$44,000 for a family of two adults and two dependents). As such, that right there makes this plan progressive, since low-income households are no longer subject to income tax.
And best of all, with essentially all those complex deductions, exemptions, credits, etc. no longer in the tax code, it means income tax forms will be simple enough that the whole thing for most taxpayers will be not much more than a postcard! :D Just the savings in income tax compliance costs would mean potentially hundreds of billions of dollars now can be used for more productive purposes.
ok, so maybe it could work with a high enough exemption, although I think $44,000 is a little too low. But you said get rid of all income tax and replace it with a consumption tax, that is even more regressive than a flat tax unless you limit it to only certain items at which point it doesn't bring in enough money to be viable.
dethmaShine
Apr 26, 02:15 PM
Well done Android and Google.
Now do me a favor, fix the damn operating system and the ecosystem associated with it.
Now do me a favor, fix the damn operating system and the ecosystem associated with it.
Multimedia
Jul 23, 11:24 PM
If the new macbook pros are only different in the chips, will there be a way to upgrade to core 2 duo if you have a previous macbook pros?No. Processors Are Soldered In MacBooks and MacBook Pros So No Upgrades Are Possible.
The way you do the upgrade is by selling your current model and buying the next one. It's called rolling over your Mac for the next one. Some of us here have done it numerous times. It's not hard to get a good price for your used Mac. By doing this at the beginning of every update, it only cost you a few hundred dollars to move up each time.
The way you do the upgrade is by selling your current model and buying the next one. It's called rolling over your Mac for the next one. Some of us here have done it numerous times. It's not hard to get a good price for your used Mac. By doing this at the beginning of every update, it only cost you a few hundred dollars to move up each time.
Cougarcat
Mar 27, 01:01 AM
So the sources are Gruber who stated it was a guess and TechCrunch who are, well, TechCrunch.
Also, Gruber later clarified that his guess was not the "iPad 3" per se, but an additional iPad model of some kind, such as possibly a retina display.
Also, Gruber later clarified that his guess was not the "iPad 3" per se, but an additional iPad model of some kind, such as possibly a retina display.
arnizzlewhizzle
Jul 30, 04:15 PM
do you think they'd make it work with cingular and the rest, or do think they'd make their own service like helio?
mvc
Aug 3, 10:45 PM
Who voted negative????? You want it slower, eh? Give the man a G3! No, a 601!
ChrisNM
Apr 25, 09:25 AM
This whole thing is stupid. Of course the iPhone will track what cell towers and wi-fi access points are around it. It needs this information to be able to make phone calls and access the internet. It makes sense that this info be stored so that it does not have to gather in info every time (basic cacheing). What Apple did not anticipate was that someone would find this database and would start screaming about an "invasion of privacy". It is probably something that Apple could have foreseen and they should have encrypted this info, but until someone proves that this info is actually being transmitted back to Apple, it's just a bunch of crap.
Thank you - this is the first post I read where someone provided a simple and easy to understand reason why this information needs to be on the phone. I am not saying the information is right, because I am not a techie.
I understand that the information doesn't go anywhere, but it would be nice to know why the phone collects it in the first place. If the explanation above is accurate, then I get it. If it is not accurate, then perhaps someone else can provide an explanation as to why it is needed.
I think this is a much more rational discourse than all the fanboy versus troll responses.
Thank you - this is the first post I read where someone provided a simple and easy to understand reason why this information needs to be on the phone. I am not saying the information is right, because I am not a techie.
I understand that the information doesn't go anywhere, but it would be nice to know why the phone collects it in the first place. If the explanation above is accurate, then I get it. If it is not accurate, then perhaps someone else can provide an explanation as to why it is needed.
I think this is a much more rational discourse than all the fanboy versus troll responses.
rerelease
Apr 23, 04:34 PM
Wish Apple did something towards resolution independence and not make images bigger and bigger. :confused:
You could argue that when they pump all consumer Mac resolutions up to the limit of human perception, resolution independence becomes sort of moot.
Of course, a fully scalable OS would help accessibility, but for many consumers a retina screen would be an excellent "one size fits all" solution.
You could argue that when they pump all consumer Mac resolutions up to the limit of human perception, resolution independence becomes sort of moot.
Of course, a fully scalable OS would help accessibility, but for many consumers a retina screen would be an excellent "one size fits all" solution.
silentnite
Apr 26, 04:05 PM
Competition is good , however with that being said. It's any one's game from month to month depending on how well the o.s. is developed & how often an update comes out. I'm sure apple has a lot up it's sleeve and I'm not just saying that because I own the iPhone 4. I also own a G-2 from Google.
ChickenSwartz
Aug 2, 12:39 PM
You got it wrong. If you can't have cameras.. you CAN'T HAVE CAMERAS even if they're NOT being used. I work at a place where you can't have cellphones with cameras on the premises (i.e., the parking lot) let alone inside. Many companies with such policies will not buy displays because of such.
I think this is an oversight (we can call it oSight) by Apple. If you want to gain market share, especially for people who want high powered equipment. I worked in a small research for a while, like the above poster, there were NO cameras allowed including camera phones. This was a blanket policy for the whole facillity even if you had no security clearence. In this case it was required becasue they did a lot DoD research.
So, right off these new computers (iMac, MB, MBP) are not options for a facility like this to use. Additionally, anyone who works there and ever wants to bring his/her personal laptop to work is sunk too.
If was still working there I probably would have to opt for a differnt laptop.
Compared to other computer brands Macs give their customers fewer add-on options. I don't know why. I guess it makes it easier for them. But, in this case I think not making the built in iSight an option (even if it is free, like the glossy screen in the MBP) is a mistake.
I think this is an oversight (we can call it oSight) by Apple. If you want to gain market share, especially for people who want high powered equipment. I worked in a small research for a while, like the above poster, there were NO cameras allowed including camera phones. This was a blanket policy for the whole facillity even if you had no security clearence. In this case it was required becasue they did a lot DoD research.
So, right off these new computers (iMac, MB, MBP) are not options for a facility like this to use. Additionally, anyone who works there and ever wants to bring his/her personal laptop to work is sunk too.
If was still working there I probably would have to opt for a differnt laptop.
Compared to other computer brands Macs give their customers fewer add-on options. I don't know why. I guess it makes it easier for them. But, in this case I think not making the built in iSight an option (even if it is free, like the glossy screen in the MBP) is a mistake.
crudsponge
Aug 4, 09:50 AM
EXCLUSIVE: Leopard Feature Set Leaked
http://www.powerpage.org/archives/2006/08/exclusive_leopard_feature_set_leaked.html
http://www.powerpage.org/archives/2006/08/exclusive_leopard_feature_set_leaked.html
itcheroni
Apr 16, 11:37 AM
Sounds like a good reason to avoid it.
Why focus your perspective on gaining wealth?
Aren't there more important things than that in our brief lives?
I guess it's the same reason creationists prefer to study their own creation science rather than anything that challenges their already held beliefs.
It's just my own personal point of view, but I don't think it's good to avoid learning something new because it might change your opinion about it.
Now I don't mean to be cruel, but he isn't making anything, creating anything or contributing anything to society through this livelihood. He's merely siphoning off the flow. And he wants to talk about perspective? It seems to me that making a living that way is guaranteed to give you a warped perspective.
It's a perspective I'm glad I don't share.
I doubt you can even explain what it is I'm doing. Can you explain how I'm not creating anything? Or contributing anything? Or what flow I'm siphoning off? You're making conclusions off complete ignorance.
I didn't miss it, you did. here, I'll bold it, underline it and put it in red so it's easier for you to catch ...
Then I'll refer to the definition so you might know what that word means ...
pri�ma�ri�ly (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/primarily) –adverb
1. essentially; mostly; chiefly; principally
Then I'll give you an example that demonstrates a different perspective on wealth ...
I am a graphic designer. My primary focus is on creating print and web solutions for my clients. While I do get paid, money is neither the source of my production and creativity, nor the material with which I work. It is a by-product of my labors, not the sole focus of them.
Thus I have a different perspective on money and wealth than itcheroni.
I hope that clarifies that for you.
If you take a single word out of a context, it's going to be...out of context. In that sense, I was using primarily, in the sense that my primary strategy is using time rather than up or down movements.
I understand the prejudice people have against financial people, because I used to have them too. I face a lot of ignorance in a lot of other activities I enjoy too. I make money off what I do, just like you do in your field. But what I do is understand economics and the mechanism of options. If I didn't understand economics, I would lose money. That's not something I would primarily want to do.
Why focus your perspective on gaining wealth?
Aren't there more important things than that in our brief lives?
I guess it's the same reason creationists prefer to study their own creation science rather than anything that challenges their already held beliefs.
It's just my own personal point of view, but I don't think it's good to avoid learning something new because it might change your opinion about it.
Now I don't mean to be cruel, but he isn't making anything, creating anything or contributing anything to society through this livelihood. He's merely siphoning off the flow. And he wants to talk about perspective? It seems to me that making a living that way is guaranteed to give you a warped perspective.
It's a perspective I'm glad I don't share.
I doubt you can even explain what it is I'm doing. Can you explain how I'm not creating anything? Or contributing anything? Or what flow I'm siphoning off? You're making conclusions off complete ignorance.
I didn't miss it, you did. here, I'll bold it, underline it and put it in red so it's easier for you to catch ...
Then I'll refer to the definition so you might know what that word means ...
pri�ma�ri�ly (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/primarily) –adverb
1. essentially; mostly; chiefly; principally
Then I'll give you an example that demonstrates a different perspective on wealth ...
I am a graphic designer. My primary focus is on creating print and web solutions for my clients. While I do get paid, money is neither the source of my production and creativity, nor the material with which I work. It is a by-product of my labors, not the sole focus of them.
Thus I have a different perspective on money and wealth than itcheroni.
I hope that clarifies that for you.
If you take a single word out of a context, it's going to be...out of context. In that sense, I was using primarily, in the sense that my primary strategy is using time rather than up or down movements.
I understand the prejudice people have against financial people, because I used to have them too. I face a lot of ignorance in a lot of other activities I enjoy too. I make money off what I do, just like you do in your field. But what I do is understand economics and the mechanism of options. If I didn't understand economics, I would lose money. That's not something I would primarily want to do.
kdarling
May 9, 02:00 PM
The best thing about using the free Google Sync, has been that my family has been able to move between different phone models so easily.
We've swapped between iPhone, WinMo, WebOS, Blackberry and Android... and each new phone gets all our contacts and calendar entries within a few minutes after taking them out of the box and putting in our Google account info.
It's great that the calendar info is shared between every computer we have as well.
Our kitchen Touchsmart computer, running a custom iGoogle homepage with Google calendar, is the nexus point for checking our family schedule each morning.
Does MobileMe support all devices as well? And what's worth $100 a year about it?
We've swapped between iPhone, WinMo, WebOS, Blackberry and Android... and each new phone gets all our contacts and calendar entries within a few minutes after taking them out of the box and putting in our Google account info.
It's great that the calendar info is shared between every computer we have as well.
Our kitchen Touchsmart computer, running a custom iGoogle homepage with Google calendar, is the nexus point for checking our family schedule each morning.
Does MobileMe support all devices as well? And what's worth $100 a year about it?
Peace
Sep 11, 11:08 AM
Consider this, the upcoming keynote is NOT given by SJ but by one of the other Apple senior team members - following his (Steve’s) below par performance last time out... Now this news would be bigger than anything else. I’d even suggest that if he shares any floor-time with anyone else things are not looking good!
BTW I hope I am very, very, wrong and we are all talking about amazing new products by this time tomorrow.
Considering the Keynote isn't till 10AM tomorrow I doubt we will be talking about amazing new products this time tomorrow ;)
We will be speculating though :)
BTW I hope I am very, very, wrong and we are all talking about amazing new products by this time tomorrow.
Considering the Keynote isn't till 10AM tomorrow I doubt we will be talking about amazing new products this time tomorrow ;)
We will be speculating though :)
Geckotek
Apr 20, 09:50 AM
Please! Make the damn phone bigger! Oh no, it may weigh a few more grams. Currently, the iphone4 is a tiny phone. For us adults, please increase the screen size, and probably, the width.
If they do then the iPhone 4 will be my last iPhone. The iPhone 4 is big enough. Any larger and it won't fit as nicely in pockets.
If they do then the iPhone 4 will be my last iPhone. The iPhone 4 is big enough. Any larger and it won't fit as nicely in pockets.
Macintosheux
Apr 23, 06:29 PM
We at Consomac.fr have shared this very information last Tuesday. I clearly remember sending you guys an e-mail about this. I'm very disappointed we are again not cited as original source for an exclusive news we've published... :(
Automatic English translation: http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=fr&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=fr&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fconsomac.fr%2Fnews-1129.html
French original: http://consomac.fr/news-1129.html
Automatic English translation: http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=fr&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=fr&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fconsomac.fr%2Fnews-1129.html
French original: http://consomac.fr/news-1129.html
CmdrLaForge
Apr 24, 02:54 AM
I think Apple is simply futureproofing here, and we won't see Retina displays for 3+ years, when it would be more feasible.
I agree with you, though, it would be nice if Apple was more serious about their GPUs. Maybe the switch to retina will force them to be.
Usually a new Mac OS is released every two years. Why inlude those now?
I agree with you, though, it would be nice if Apple was more serious about their GPUs. Maybe the switch to retina will force them to be.
Usually a new Mac OS is released every two years. Why inlude those now?
BlizzardBomb
Jul 23, 05:59 AM
I posted this question in another thread but no one has answered it, so... I was wondering what thoughts you had on this:
Will this upgrade to Core 2 Duo be considered a RevB strictly speaking, for the iMacs? I mean, since it's a new generation of Intel chip as opposed to a speed bump of an existing chip, is it likely to cause any unknown bugs or dramas that the Core Duos didn't?
I'm in the market for a new iMac when they put the new chips in, but I want to be confident that this time they'll have ironed out all the bugs from the initial release of Intel iMacs, plus not be likely to have new bugs caused by the new architecture of the Core 2 Duos.
Thoughts?
Chuck.
If iMacs get Merom its highly likely there'll be 0 new problems. If they get Conroe there is a very very small possibility of heat issues.
Will this upgrade to Core 2 Duo be considered a RevB strictly speaking, for the iMacs? I mean, since it's a new generation of Intel chip as opposed to a speed bump of an existing chip, is it likely to cause any unknown bugs or dramas that the Core Duos didn't?
I'm in the market for a new iMac when they put the new chips in, but I want to be confident that this time they'll have ironed out all the bugs from the initial release of Intel iMacs, plus not be likely to have new bugs caused by the new architecture of the Core 2 Duos.
Thoughts?
Chuck.
If iMacs get Merom its highly likely there'll be 0 new problems. If they get Conroe there is a very very small possibility of heat issues.