wclyffe
Jan 5, 01:15 PM
BUT i'm curious whether the satnav apps are waiting on the mount's fix or taking first availalble? ... i would hope they'd wait on mount since ultimately it should have more precision since it's called 'enhanced' GPS, but how can you tell for sure?
one thing i've tried is to remove the iPhone from the mount after navigating and see if it disrupts the GPS signal w/in the satnav app ... i would expect there to be a switch over to internal GPS and see a small disruption ... but i'm not getting a disrupted signal ... can't be sure one way or the other
Here's what I've noticed in just one day of use. I'm using Navigon and I did download the TomTom Free App to stop the message from appearing each time. With my 3Gs docked in the car kit, I get the my directions locked in about 5 seconds from when I hit the "Start Navigation" button. I also tried an experiment in my garage, where my phone was unable to get the GPS signal, but docked I had a route in motion in under 5 seconds. Still experimenting.....
one thing i've tried is to remove the iPhone from the mount after navigating and see if it disrupts the GPS signal w/in the satnav app ... i would expect there to be a switch over to internal GPS and see a small disruption ... but i'm not getting a disrupted signal ... can't be sure one way or the other
Here's what I've noticed in just one day of use. I'm using Navigon and I did download the TomTom Free App to stop the message from appearing each time. With my 3Gs docked in the car kit, I get the my directions locked in about 5 seconds from when I hit the "Start Navigation" button. I also tried an experiment in my garage, where my phone was unable to get the GPS signal, but docked I had a route in motion in under 5 seconds. Still experimenting.....
zephonic
Apr 25, 10:09 AM
Am I the only one who thinks it's not a big deal? Your carrier tracks your phone all the ff-ing time. Google has the SSL beta now, but until recently they tracked your every move.
So the issue is that someone may possibly access this data? They'd have to get hold off your phone first. :rolleyes:
This is something that needs to be addressed and I reckon Apple will do so in the next iOS update, but to me it just looks as if two guys really went all out for some publicity.
So the issue is that someone may possibly access this data? They'd have to get hold off your phone first. :rolleyes:
This is something that needs to be addressed and I reckon Apple will do so in the next iOS update, but to me it just looks as if two guys really went all out for some publicity.
toughboy
Nov 26, 04:46 PM
Well whatever Apple puts inside that 'tablet' thing, I want it to be named as 'Newton'.. That is the name the product deserves, something with respect to Apple's own history..
We should be done with the cheap code-names like iTV and etc.. Newton is 'Apple-ish' enough...
For the spec side, all I want is a machine running a croped version of Mac OSX that can be used as a GSM cellphone and can surf internet via WiFi.. We already got iPod for music, so we dont need tens of gigabytes of storage.. 4-8gb is fair enough for a device like this..
We should be done with the cheap code-names like iTV and etc.. Newton is 'Apple-ish' enough...
For the spec side, all I want is a machine running a croped version of Mac OSX that can be used as a GSM cellphone and can surf internet via WiFi.. We already got iPod for music, so we dont need tens of gigabytes of storage.. 4-8gb is fair enough for a device like this..
Don't panic
Apr 11, 07:45 AM
Yes, because the uninitiated that claim this is ambiguous keep popping up. Oh wait...
If you read it as anything other than a division, you need to go back to school.
Only for those with a lack of understanding of basic math. Again, the problem is not the equation per say, it's the people that don't understand mathematics.
Justin Bieber amp; Selena Gomez
Selena Gomez Justin Bieber
selena gomez and justin bieber
1304092996 88 Justin Bieber
Justin Bieber and Selena Gomez
Justin Bieber, Selena Gomez
Selena Gomez, Justin Bieber
Justin Bieber and Selena Gomez
Selena Gomez and Justin Bieber
Selena Gomez Likes Justin
Selena Gomez denies Justin
Justin Bieber and Selena Gomez
Selena Gomez and Justin Bieber
Justin Bieber amp; Selena Gomez
SELENA GOMEZ AND JUSTIN BIEBER
If you read it as anything other than a division, you need to go back to school.
Only for those with a lack of understanding of basic math. Again, the problem is not the equation per say, it's the people that don't understand mathematics.
adamchronister8
Mar 28, 10:20 AM
I don't see why this is such an issue. I would rather they wait until they feel the need to show new hardware instead of just throwing something out there to make the press happy.
Full of Win
Mar 28, 09:48 AM
The iPhone 4 is already dated relative to other phones on the market. To have a phone on the market for 18 months without an update is insane.
Unspeaked
Aug 11, 11:11 AM
Everyone waiting on the Core 2 Duo MacBook needs to get a clue.
It's the same folks who were falling over waiting to WWDC to come so they could order their Core 2 Duo MacBooks after the keynote!
Apple IS NOT going to move the MacBook to a Core 2 Duo until they've updated:
1) MacBook Pro
2) iMac
3) Maybe even Mac Mini, since it's been out forever!
The MacBook is barely three months old. It may get a speed bump and/or price cut soon, but won't get a new chip.
All of you saying Apple has to upgrade it to a Core 2 Duo to complete with Dell, HP, etc - why? Why do they HAVE to? Will they explode if they don't? Will the sun stop shining? Will all the world's puppies die?
Of course they'll upgrade it eventually. That doesn't mean it needs to be upgraded as soon as the chips are available. If you look at other PC maker's sites, most of their machines don't even have the Core Duo chips yet; there's no rush.
You can't claim Apple will inevitable act a certain way now that they're on Intel chips; you don't know that. They have no history of using Intel chips. Just because your bright minds think it would be a good idea to move the MB line to the latest and greatest chip whenever a new one is released by Intel because "that's what the other guys are doing," it doesn't mean Apple agrees with you.
What we DO know for a fact is Apple like to differentiate between consumer and pro lines, and Apple has never been one to put the latest chips into the iMac or Mac Mini level machines - and I don't see either of that changing.
It's the same folks who were falling over waiting to WWDC to come so they could order their Core 2 Duo MacBooks after the keynote!
Apple IS NOT going to move the MacBook to a Core 2 Duo until they've updated:
1) MacBook Pro
2) iMac
3) Maybe even Mac Mini, since it's been out forever!
The MacBook is barely three months old. It may get a speed bump and/or price cut soon, but won't get a new chip.
All of you saying Apple has to upgrade it to a Core 2 Duo to complete with Dell, HP, etc - why? Why do they HAVE to? Will they explode if they don't? Will the sun stop shining? Will all the world's puppies die?
Of course they'll upgrade it eventually. That doesn't mean it needs to be upgraded as soon as the chips are available. If you look at other PC maker's sites, most of their machines don't even have the Core Duo chips yet; there's no rush.
You can't claim Apple will inevitable act a certain way now that they're on Intel chips; you don't know that. They have no history of using Intel chips. Just because your bright minds think it would be a good idea to move the MB line to the latest and greatest chip whenever a new one is released by Intel because "that's what the other guys are doing," it doesn't mean Apple agrees with you.
What we DO know for a fact is Apple like to differentiate between consumer and pro lines, and Apple has never been one to put the latest chips into the iMac or Mac Mini level machines - and I don't see either of that changing.
MCIowaRulz
Mar 30, 05:42 PM
Lion is ready to Roar (almost)
Getting it with the NEW iMac 2011!
Going to FINALLY replace my 867 Mhz PowerMac G4 running 10.4.11
Getting it with the NEW iMac 2011!
Going to FINALLY replace my 867 Mhz PowerMac G4 running 10.4.11
ChazUK
Apr 20, 01:46 AM
I don't see that happening. Apple tends to avoid complicated product lines. That is one too many options in my opinion.
Considering we have three tier (or more) systems with other Apple lines I don't see it as a total impossibility.
Mac Mini > iMac > Mac Pro
MacBook > MacBook Air > MacBook Pro
iPod Shuffle > Nano > Classic > Touch etc.
We'll have to wait and see how it all turns out!:)
Considering we have three tier (or more) systems with other Apple lines I don't see it as a total impossibility.
Mac Mini > iMac > Mac Pro
MacBook > MacBook Air > MacBook Pro
iPod Shuffle > Nano > Classic > Touch etc.
We'll have to wait and see how it all turns out!:)
kxbcvoi
Apr 23, 11:47 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
So I gonna have a hard time finding wallpaper.
So I gonna have a hard time finding wallpaper.
dethmaShine
Apr 25, 10:15 AM
CLAIMS:
Apple and iPhone track User Locations
Easily accessible file to any one who has access to one's iPhone/iPad
EXPLANATIONS:
iPhone tracks User Locations.
Apple does NOT track User Locations.
Accessibility threat is a void as one can do wonders if he has your property.
Steve Jobs is a dick because I hate Apple. Android is open and I love open. I can open it. I can wigets. I can overclock the **** out of it. Apple is Closed. Hypocrites and Evil.
And I'm 12. :rolleyes:
Apple and iPhone track User Locations
Easily accessible file to any one who has access to one's iPhone/iPad
EXPLANATIONS:
iPhone tracks User Locations.
Apple does NOT track User Locations.
Accessibility threat is a void as one can do wonders if he has your property.
Steve Jobs is a dick because I hate Apple. Android is open and I love open. I can open it. I can wigets. I can overclock the **** out of it. Apple is Closed. Hypocrites and Evil.
And I'm 12. :rolleyes:
balamw
Apr 9, 09:15 PM
Tastes great. (who's with me):p
Given your argument I would have thought you'd represent "less filling". :p
B
Given your argument I would have thought you'd represent "less filling". :p
B
glassbathroom
Aug 3, 04:02 AM
I'm expecting to get frustrated with the quality of streamed video of the keynote. Yes Steve, I am sure that it is "cool stuff", but it all looks like frog spawn to me!
wovel
Apr 7, 12:13 PM
Apple is extremely proactive. Which means they have a plan in place. When competition does something good that fits with their plans, then Apple can add it as a line item to their existing plans and assign it to a specific iOS release.
The competition on the other hand is defining their plans and goals completely based on what Apple does or what Apple's critics are saying. They do not have a very long-term vision of where they want to be and are by-and-large reactionary to what Apple is doing.
I will say that Google does indeed have a long-term vision, but not for Android's features. Google's long-term vision is to do anything they can to ensure they sit in between the user and the information on the Internet so they can advertise to them. They see Facebook as a major threat in this regard as well as Apple. Google's long-term plans are being disrupted by these other major players. Android/Honeycomb is a reactionary attempt to correct for some of that.
Good to see some people get it. It is weird how so many people here that think things like the Tab,Xoom, and Playbook will inspire Apple to keep improving. I am not sure how companies that are releasing products that will all be ranked by independent reviewers as similar or inferior to the iPad 1 will inspire Apple to do anything. They can't even inspire consumers to buy them.
The competition on the other hand is defining their plans and goals completely based on what Apple does or what Apple's critics are saying. They do not have a very long-term vision of where they want to be and are by-and-large reactionary to what Apple is doing.
I will say that Google does indeed have a long-term vision, but not for Android's features. Google's long-term vision is to do anything they can to ensure they sit in between the user and the information on the Internet so they can advertise to them. They see Facebook as a major threat in this regard as well as Apple. Google's long-term plans are being disrupted by these other major players. Android/Honeycomb is a reactionary attempt to correct for some of that.
Good to see some people get it. It is weird how so many people here that think things like the Tab,Xoom, and Playbook will inspire Apple to keep improving. I am not sure how companies that are releasing products that will all be ranked by independent reviewers as similar or inferior to the iPad 1 will inspire Apple to do anything. They can't even inspire consumers to buy them.
connorhays
Nov 22, 11:40 PM
the iphone will beat treo out
nanofrog
Apr 29, 01:41 AM
What has me wondering, is how Apple might support the 14 SATA devices that the X79 chipset will natively provide. Presumably, they will determine that their average customer only needs X SATA ports, and the rest will be left unexposed. With TB support, this may not be that big of an issue for those that really need or want 10-12 drives.
They already provide fewer USB ports than the ICH10 actually provides (12 on the chip, but Apple only provides access to 5), so it's certainly possible this sort of thinking could be applied elsewhere.
I also wonder what else they would consider denying access to in the X79 (i.e. RAID functionality in particular).
They already provide fewer USB ports than the ICH10 actually provides (12 on the chip, but Apple only provides access to 5), so it's certainly possible this sort of thinking could be applied elsewhere.
I also wonder what else they would consider denying access to in the X79 (i.e. RAID functionality in particular).
Full of Win
Apr 5, 01:32 PM
How one big multinational company arguing with another affects your phone, I don't quite understand. Oh, wait...you're saying you WANT to make your homescreen a Toyota ad?
I tell you what, all you "I demand my freedom" folks confuse me more and more. The right to let Toyota advertise to you was never a big arguing point in the past for the radicals I used to read about.
I just don''t like to see Apple flex their power to do things they cannot legally force under the DMCA (per The Library of Congress).
I tell you what, all you "I demand my freedom" folks confuse me more and more. The right to let Toyota advertise to you was never a big arguing point in the past for the radicals I used to read about.
I just don''t like to see Apple flex their power to do things they cannot legally force under the DMCA (per The Library of Congress).
BornAgainMac
Nov 22, 07:36 AM
He is correct. "PC guys" won't be figuring this out. I am looking forward to Apple's ideas on phones and the keynote comparing it to other phones. It will bring some laughs.
itcheroni
Apr 21, 12:50 AM
I'd love it if you could point out where you addressed this, because as a tax accountant, I'm having a hard time thinking of a time when a realized capital gain isn't income - if you have a realized net gain (ie amount realized is greater than your basis in the capital asset), you certainly have income. Certainly you could reinvest that net gain, but that doesn't mean you don't have income, that just means you realized a gain and reinvested the old basis and the gain (income). You're only taxed on realized gains that are recognized by the code (and you can net against realized losses) - sure, I could have an unrealized capital gain that isn't income, but I wouldn't be taxed on it either. Not that I don't agree with some of your points, but I'd really love the same clarification on this that most other posters have been asking for.
I suppose what you are getting at as a trader is that you buy a capital asset for $1000 and sell two days latter for $1100, then reinvest the $1100 into another capital asset. You'd be taxed on the $100 of capital gain even though you effectively have no cash in your hands to pay the tax. Unfortunately for traders, income doesn't mean cash. But a person who was in the trade or business of being a professional trader wouldn't qualify for capital gains treatment anyways, it would all be ordinary income.
Okay, but just for you, dude (when you disagree with me, we both can at least understand what we're disagreeing on. Other people here, well, it's just a waste of time. They start responding before even understanding my point). I guess I didn't make it clear earlier but my perspective on capital gains is in relation to inflation. If there were 100 widgets and 100 dollars, let's say the value of one widget was 1 dollar. If the central bank in charge of dollars decides to do some quantitative easing and increases the money supply to 200 dollars. This will lead to inflation with one widget valued at approximately 2 dollars. Now, why should one pay capital gains on this when, most likely, everything else costs more too. You didn't really receive any gain; the measurement of value (dollars) decreased.
For example, let's say there was a tax for getting taller. If the measurement of an inch or foot keeps decreasing, you will have to keep paying even though you're not getting taller.
Earlier I gave an example of the time between buying an apple and biting into it, likening it to cost basis and realized gain. We would find it ridiculous to pay a tax for any capital gain in the apple, but if I choose to save my money in gold until I use it, most people think I'm actually gaining something. If I were holding stock in a company that paid dividends, that might be different.
So from my perspective, the inflation (capital gain) itself is a tax, and we have to pay a tax for that tax. Right now, I don't believe the economy is really improving; the Fed is just creating enough inflation to improve the numbers. Stocks may be going up, but I think food prices are going up even faster. So what is the point of a capital gains on stocks if the proceeds from the sale nets you even less groceries than at the time of your cost basis? If a 1 ounce gold coin a hundred years ago buys you roughly the same today, what is the point of charging a capital gains? In this case, the coin would have gone from $20 to $1500, adding up to a capital gain of $1480. Sure, you could have save the $20 in cash instead of gold, but then you're "taxed" by inflation. Instead of paying your rent for several months, $20 will now buy you a haircut. Forget the "tax the rich" aspect of this; this makes it really difficult for poor people to save money because they are the ones most likely to save cash.
My concern is, how will we save our purchasing power? The government is actively decreasing the value of our money and anything we do to try and save our purchasing power is stripped away by taxes.
I suppose what you are getting at as a trader is that you buy a capital asset for $1000 and sell two days latter for $1100, then reinvest the $1100 into another capital asset. You'd be taxed on the $100 of capital gain even though you effectively have no cash in your hands to pay the tax. Unfortunately for traders, income doesn't mean cash. But a person who was in the trade or business of being a professional trader wouldn't qualify for capital gains treatment anyways, it would all be ordinary income.
Okay, but just for you, dude (when you disagree with me, we both can at least understand what we're disagreeing on. Other people here, well, it's just a waste of time. They start responding before even understanding my point). I guess I didn't make it clear earlier but my perspective on capital gains is in relation to inflation. If there were 100 widgets and 100 dollars, let's say the value of one widget was 1 dollar. If the central bank in charge of dollars decides to do some quantitative easing and increases the money supply to 200 dollars. This will lead to inflation with one widget valued at approximately 2 dollars. Now, why should one pay capital gains on this when, most likely, everything else costs more too. You didn't really receive any gain; the measurement of value (dollars) decreased.
For example, let's say there was a tax for getting taller. If the measurement of an inch or foot keeps decreasing, you will have to keep paying even though you're not getting taller.
Earlier I gave an example of the time between buying an apple and biting into it, likening it to cost basis and realized gain. We would find it ridiculous to pay a tax for any capital gain in the apple, but if I choose to save my money in gold until I use it, most people think I'm actually gaining something. If I were holding stock in a company that paid dividends, that might be different.
So from my perspective, the inflation (capital gain) itself is a tax, and we have to pay a tax for that tax. Right now, I don't believe the economy is really improving; the Fed is just creating enough inflation to improve the numbers. Stocks may be going up, but I think food prices are going up even faster. So what is the point of a capital gains on stocks if the proceeds from the sale nets you even less groceries than at the time of your cost basis? If a 1 ounce gold coin a hundred years ago buys you roughly the same today, what is the point of charging a capital gains? In this case, the coin would have gone from $20 to $1500, adding up to a capital gain of $1480. Sure, you could have save the $20 in cash instead of gold, but then you're "taxed" by inflation. Instead of paying your rent for several months, $20 will now buy you a haircut. Forget the "tax the rich" aspect of this; this makes it really difficult for poor people to save money because they are the ones most likely to save cash.
My concern is, how will we save our purchasing power? The government is actively decreasing the value of our money and anything we do to try and save our purchasing power is stripped away by taxes.
paul4339
Apr 26, 02:18 PM
it's interesting to see Windows mobile/WP7 at 7% of new purchases (compared to 25% for iOS) ... I didn't realize it was so popular.
P.
P.
ImNoSuperMan
Sep 11, 06:51 AM
Apple has over 150 stores in US(or is it 250?). So is it possible if someone wants to Buy or rent a movie he just goes to any of these stores(which will have Optic fibre connectivity with the online store) and download the desired movie on his iPod/Laptop/mini taking no more than 10 minutes. Now this might not sound that great but it should definitely up the sales of iFlicks by atleast 10-15% IMO. All these stores are located in prime locations in big cities. There is a huge number of footfalls in and around these stores. I dont live in US. But if I did and had such a store nearby I`d definitely be renting/buying atleast thrice as much movies than I`d otherwise even if I had a 10 Mbps connection.
It`s just a thought and it might not really be possible. But if possible it can be one of those nice little extras which can help Apple gain on Amazon.
It`s just a thought and it might not really be possible. But if possible it can be one of those nice little extras which can help Apple gain on Amazon.
megapopular
Mar 28, 12:18 PM
That's just getting complacent in my opinion, people like myself like changing phones yearly, no new iPhone means no return business, I'll try something else instead, bad move if true.
It only says "Fiscal Year" which ends in September, so if this news stoy holds true, you'll still have the option of getting a new iPhone this year!
It only says "Fiscal Year" which ends in September, so if this news stoy holds true, you'll still have the option of getting a new iPhone this year!
alvindarkness
Apr 10, 12:02 PM
I'm not saying that 2 is an incorrect answer, the equation is ambiguous. However, I assume the equation is written that way because it is done on a forum without formula writing ability and writing-
48(9+3) = 288
48(9+3) = 288
cvaldes
May 7, 10:53 AM
Why not just make it a $20 product instead of giving it away for no profit?
It might be easier for Apple to run MobileMe as a free service; there's a certain amount of overhead for account administration, customer service, etc., plus a certain level of expectation (higher?) when it's a paid service.
Apple uses software, content and services to drive sales of its high-margin hardware. By publicizing the fact that they are giving away basic cloud services for free, that might drive more people to buy Macs and mobile devices.
Also, this would make them even more of a competitor to Google.
It might be easier for Apple to run MobileMe as a free service; there's a certain amount of overhead for account administration, customer service, etc., plus a certain level of expectation (higher?) when it's a paid service.
Apple uses software, content and services to drive sales of its high-margin hardware. By publicizing the fact that they are giving away basic cloud services for free, that might drive more people to buy Macs and mobile devices.
Also, this would make them even more of a competitor to Google.