japanime
Mar 25, 03:46 AM
the release in retrospect was a milestone in Apple's transformation from a struggling computer company into the major technology behemoth it is today.
Odd choice of words. "Behemoth" is most often used to describe something that that it is so large that it is unpleasant. And "major behemoth" is redundant.
Odd choice of words. "Behemoth" is most often used to describe something that that it is so large that it is unpleasant. And "major behemoth" is redundant.
LastLine
Sep 12, 07:54 AM
Fully agree! If this is an update to globally release movies and tv shows all I have to say is FINALLY
If it's not... Apple are letting down anyone outside America once again with another America-centered update :/
Yeah, it's a real bad business model really in that sense,.
If it's not... Apple are letting down anyone outside America once again with another America-centered update :/
Yeah, it's a real bad business model really in that sense,.
mizzoucat
Sep 12, 08:14 AM
It's a shame. I woke up this morning ready to purchase 1,000,000 iTunes songs. Apple missed out on a big opportunity.
miles01110
Sep 12, 08:32 AM
http://www.apple.com/de/quicktime/win.html
bottom left of page
Ooh....nice find, the movies shown there are terrible though :-)
bottom left of page
Ooh....nice find, the movies shown there are terrible though :-)
more...
match311
Jan 8, 08:33 PM
I predict I am going to need a lot of money to purchase any of the sweet new prodcuts :p
BenRoethig
Oct 2, 07:14 PM
I'm surprised how many people are interpreting this wrong.
The point of this is that Amazon can go to this new company and license Fairplay-compatable DRM. That way they can sell movies/music on their website (Unbox) and sell it with DRM that is iPod/iTV/iTunes Compatible.
This could mean, for example, Napster could be iTunes/iPod compatible.
Or Vongo (unlimited movie downloads $9.95/month) could be iPod compatible.
Personally, I'm not sure how long it will go. Either Apple will shut them down (if legally capable) or simply start licensing Fairplay themselves and cut out the middleman (which could be an inadvertant positive result of this effort)
OR
[edit: as pointed out below, this is probably not possible]
Microsoft licenses it so Zune can play iTunes Music/Movie store content. That could be a huge boost for Zune.
arn
Exactly my point. If windows iPod users could transfer their iPod media to Zune and Windows media player, it would be a huge plus for them. Remember, most iPod owners don't belong to the church of Mac. We already know they are more than willing to live outside accepted ethics if it suits them.
The point of this is that Amazon can go to this new company and license Fairplay-compatable DRM. That way they can sell movies/music on their website (Unbox) and sell it with DRM that is iPod/iTV/iTunes Compatible.
This could mean, for example, Napster could be iTunes/iPod compatible.
Or Vongo (unlimited movie downloads $9.95/month) could be iPod compatible.
Personally, I'm not sure how long it will go. Either Apple will shut them down (if legally capable) or simply start licensing Fairplay themselves and cut out the middleman (which could be an inadvertant positive result of this effort)
OR
[edit: as pointed out below, this is probably not possible]
Microsoft licenses it so Zune can play iTunes Music/Movie store content. That could be a huge boost for Zune.
arn
Exactly my point. If windows iPod users could transfer their iPod media to Zune and Windows media player, it would be a huge plus for them. Remember, most iPod owners don't belong to the church of Mac. We already know they are more than willing to live outside accepted ethics if it suits them.
more...
Some_Big_Spoon
Nov 16, 12:46 PM
Well, no one said ditching.. I'm sure Apple's got their gear running on all sorts of things, just in case. Where Apple's machines are in the market, the Intel name and specs are far more valuable than AMD, no? Intel's got a fire under them now, and the sleeping giant's gathering steam, so while I'm sure Apple's got many plans, I can't see them expanding x86 suppliers for a long, long time..
But, then again, who wants to watch movies on a 3" screen? :-)
I can't see Apple ditching intel this early somehow.
But, then again, who wants to watch movies on a 3" screen? :-)
I can't see Apple ditching intel this early somehow.
JAT
May 4, 12:07 AM
We might be getting somewhere with Silverlight support.
You really want to watch video on a 10" screen?
You really want to watch video on a 10" screen?
more...
Anthony T
Apr 15, 03:48 PM
http://www.boygeniusreport.com/2010/04/15/images-of-4th-generation-iphone-emerge/
What do you guys think?
I think it could be real, since when the 3G photos leaked, everyone was like 'no way Apple is going for a plastic back' and no one believed they were real...but it turned out they were.
I'm not sure how I feel about those edges on the phone though. It should be more rounded out and smooth.
What do you guys think?
I think it could be real, since when the 3G photos leaked, everyone was like 'no way Apple is going for a plastic back' and no one believed they were real...but it turned out they were.
I'm not sure how I feel about those edges on the phone though. It should be more rounded out and smooth.
spillproof
Sep 28, 10:50 PM
omg Steve Jobs please build myHouse.
Does Stevey know feng shui?
Does Stevey know feng shui?
more...
CaoCao
Apr 17, 02:25 PM
I doubt Lee missed your point; maybe your point is just undefendable. For example, explain how you can prove that adding a bit of content about modern history will somehow force something else out of the curriculum. That there are a finite amount of class hours isn't good enough.
As we march through history, we have to condense more and more of it into a class. It wasn't that long ago that we added the space program to our description of modern history. Then JFK. MLK. Civil rights. Space shuttles. John Hinckley Jr. Fall of communism. Berlin Wall. Iraq. 9/11. Tsunamis. Egypt. What did these things take the place of or force out of the curriculum?
Incidentally, when I came through school many years ago, it was mentioned that Einstein was a Jew. It's not irrelevant - it's part of his story and part of who he was. In my classes, it wasn't swept under the rug, but neither was it mentioned "first" nor did it make me want to convert to Judaism. Adding a facet to our understanding of a person in history is not promotion.
You really don't get that it's not promotion. There is a big swath of gray area between promotion and concealment. The GLBT struggle for equality is part of our culture whether you are involved in it or not. It should be entered into the records.
Adding those decreased time for other things, ideally World History and American History would be 1.5 years. JFK gets summarized as the first Catholic to get elected to president, led the disastrous Bay of Pigs and then got shot, ignoring the Peace Corps and the Space Program. John Hinckley Jr. isn't in the textbooks at all, IIRC he tried to kill Reagan and there was something about Jodi Foster
No one is saying it is, except for you. Nothing is being placed above anything else. There is no order of importance.
I'd prefer he be remembered for both, as they were both part of him. It's important for gay kids, like other kids, to know there are people just like them who have done great things. They're called role models. Why that bothers you is beyond me.
Yes indeed. But why we differ is puzzling to me.
There is a finite amount of time, the more ways you slice it the smaller the pieces get
So a gay should see Turing and strive to be as good a mathematician as Turing? Why shouldn't they strive to be the best mathematician there is?
Everybody stop doing stuff.
History's all full now.
Or we can make more time for history
I don't think you understand the thrust of this law. It's not about creating a separate class on gay rights, it's about incorporating gay people into existing history lessons. You mention Oppenheimer. Unless, I'm mistaken, the fact that he was a jew is mentioned in most history books. The same with Einstein. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 was a pretty big deal, as were the US internment camps for Japanese-Americans during WWII. The Act and the camps are pretty self-explanatory. They were directed at a specific ethnic group of people. Gay accomplishments and persecution has mostly been swept under the rug.
Harvey Milk wasn't shot because he was gay, he was shot because he defeated a very disturbed man in an election. But, the fact that he was gay is pretty important.
The story of America is a story of minorities.
So the Pink Triangles of the Holocaust are irrelevant?
Wow, I don't know what to say. People of distinction aren't simply born that way, one's upbringing and the time in which they came of age play an enormous role. Any number of American industrialists were driven by adverse events during their formative years. Those events are almost always touched on. Being gay for most of human history has been pretty difficult. To not touch on that is really stupid and shows a bias that when it comes to history, should not be shown.
In American studies we didn't even mention the Manhattan Project, we didn't cover discrimination against the Chinese, we spent five minutes on the morality of Japanese Internment camps, but we didn't go why they interned them.
Harvey Milk wasn't shot because he beat Dan White in an election, Dan White resigned the position of supervisor because he felt the salary wasn't enough, but within a couple days he wanted his job back, he blamed Milk for not letting him have his job back and White jumped off the deep end.
The Holocaust was summarized as the Nazis were evil, they gassed, burned and worked to death lots of Jews, the Nazis were bad m'kay?
They're not in the records?
Come on, guy. Does it really matter if somebody were gay? I thought people of a liberal mindset are supposed to be "colorblind" or what have you, yet all of a sudden their sexuality, which has nothing to do with their achievements, should be made an important part of history?
How hypocritical.
If you set out the best negro x you have already flunked the matriculation exam for the entrance to the university of integration.
You do realize that homosexuality is not new and in fact was prevalent throughout ancient Greece, Rome and Egypt. It wasn't until Christianity took root and became prevalent that homosexuality was looked down upon. You can thank religion for that (Leviticus 18:22). So in fact, for most of human history homosexuality was seen as no different from heterosexuality.
Bisexuality was not uncommon, pure homosexuality was still rare and being penetrated was looked down upon because you weren't being the man in the relationship
As we march through history, we have to condense more and more of it into a class. It wasn't that long ago that we added the space program to our description of modern history. Then JFK. MLK. Civil rights. Space shuttles. John Hinckley Jr. Fall of communism. Berlin Wall. Iraq. 9/11. Tsunamis. Egypt. What did these things take the place of or force out of the curriculum?
Incidentally, when I came through school many years ago, it was mentioned that Einstein was a Jew. It's not irrelevant - it's part of his story and part of who he was. In my classes, it wasn't swept under the rug, but neither was it mentioned "first" nor did it make me want to convert to Judaism. Adding a facet to our understanding of a person in history is not promotion.
You really don't get that it's not promotion. There is a big swath of gray area between promotion and concealment. The GLBT struggle for equality is part of our culture whether you are involved in it or not. It should be entered into the records.
Adding those decreased time for other things, ideally World History and American History would be 1.5 years. JFK gets summarized as the first Catholic to get elected to president, led the disastrous Bay of Pigs and then got shot, ignoring the Peace Corps and the Space Program. John Hinckley Jr. isn't in the textbooks at all, IIRC he tried to kill Reagan and there was something about Jodi Foster
No one is saying it is, except for you. Nothing is being placed above anything else. There is no order of importance.
I'd prefer he be remembered for both, as they were both part of him. It's important for gay kids, like other kids, to know there are people just like them who have done great things. They're called role models. Why that bothers you is beyond me.
Yes indeed. But why we differ is puzzling to me.
There is a finite amount of time, the more ways you slice it the smaller the pieces get
So a gay should see Turing and strive to be as good a mathematician as Turing? Why shouldn't they strive to be the best mathematician there is?
Everybody stop doing stuff.
History's all full now.
Or we can make more time for history
I don't think you understand the thrust of this law. It's not about creating a separate class on gay rights, it's about incorporating gay people into existing history lessons. You mention Oppenheimer. Unless, I'm mistaken, the fact that he was a jew is mentioned in most history books. The same with Einstein. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 was a pretty big deal, as were the US internment camps for Japanese-Americans during WWII. The Act and the camps are pretty self-explanatory. They were directed at a specific ethnic group of people. Gay accomplishments and persecution has mostly been swept under the rug.
Harvey Milk wasn't shot because he was gay, he was shot because he defeated a very disturbed man in an election. But, the fact that he was gay is pretty important.
The story of America is a story of minorities.
So the Pink Triangles of the Holocaust are irrelevant?
Wow, I don't know what to say. People of distinction aren't simply born that way, one's upbringing and the time in which they came of age play an enormous role. Any number of American industrialists were driven by adverse events during their formative years. Those events are almost always touched on. Being gay for most of human history has been pretty difficult. To not touch on that is really stupid and shows a bias that when it comes to history, should not be shown.
In American studies we didn't even mention the Manhattan Project, we didn't cover discrimination against the Chinese, we spent five minutes on the morality of Japanese Internment camps, but we didn't go why they interned them.
Harvey Milk wasn't shot because he beat Dan White in an election, Dan White resigned the position of supervisor because he felt the salary wasn't enough, but within a couple days he wanted his job back, he blamed Milk for not letting him have his job back and White jumped off the deep end.
The Holocaust was summarized as the Nazis were evil, they gassed, burned and worked to death lots of Jews, the Nazis were bad m'kay?
They're not in the records?
Come on, guy. Does it really matter if somebody were gay? I thought people of a liberal mindset are supposed to be "colorblind" or what have you, yet all of a sudden their sexuality, which has nothing to do with their achievements, should be made an important part of history?
How hypocritical.
If you set out the best negro x you have already flunked the matriculation exam for the entrance to the university of integration.
You do realize that homosexuality is not new and in fact was prevalent throughout ancient Greece, Rome and Egypt. It wasn't until Christianity took root and became prevalent that homosexuality was looked down upon. You can thank religion for that (Leviticus 18:22). So in fact, for most of human history homosexuality was seen as no different from heterosexuality.
Bisexuality was not uncommon, pure homosexuality was still rare and being penetrated was looked down upon because you weren't being the man in the relationship
Nicolasdec
Jan 9, 05:33 PM
same hear
more...
Object-X
Sep 25, 11:29 AM
Adobe is almost getting as bad as Microsoft at delivering software. What's up with Darkroom? It's been in beta for over a year, meanwhile Apple has been steadily improving their product. Granted, some might feel that Aperture was so bad it should have been beta, but at least Apple took the chance to innovate in this space.
KidHoliday
Oct 11, 07:22 PM
Sweet! Now all I need is a car charger and some silly putty to stick it to my dashboard
more...
MacFly123
Apr 15, 01:40 PM
F-A-K-E!!! :rolleyes:
It can't be all metal. Otherwise it will have some serious signal issues.
Using aluminum would hinder the cellular reception wouldn't it ?
Why do people NOT understand, that even Apple, who LOVES aluminum, switched from that to palstic... WHY??? WHY would Apple of all companies do that??? BECAUSE IT DOESN'T WORK WITH THE CELL RECEPTION ON THE iPHONE PERIOD! They are NOT going to go back to aluminum lol! :rolleyes:
Besides that, this is UGLY! Way harsh edges, and the curvature on the back isn't even smooth, there are like sharp angles at the corners. On the iPad this design makes sense, on the iPhone that would be terribly uncomfortable in your hand!
It can't be all metal. Otherwise it will have some serious signal issues.
Using aluminum would hinder the cellular reception wouldn't it ?
Why do people NOT understand, that even Apple, who LOVES aluminum, switched from that to palstic... WHY??? WHY would Apple of all companies do that??? BECAUSE IT DOESN'T WORK WITH THE CELL RECEPTION ON THE iPHONE PERIOD! They are NOT going to go back to aluminum lol! :rolleyes:
Besides that, this is UGLY! Way harsh edges, and the curvature on the back isn't even smooth, there are like sharp angles at the corners. On the iPad this design makes sense, on the iPhone that would be terribly uncomfortable in your hand!
notjustjay
Mar 7, 01:06 AM
I think there are a lot of factors at play here.
One is that virtually every other company not only has to compete with Apple, but with each other. So they have to cram the most features and specs they can into a product, while making as cheap as they possibly can, in order to stay competitive.
For example, take a MacBook Pro, and find ways to make it cheaper: Well, we can replace the unibody aluminum with a plastic shell. We could remove the backlit keyboard. We could replace the glass touchpad with a cheaper part. Take out the Firewire port. Hey, look what's left: a cheap laptop. Everyone tries to get it cheaper and cheaper so they can outsell the other guys. Meanwhile, Apple puts in whatever they want and charges whatever they want, because they've built themselves up a position where they know people will still go ahead and pay it.
Also, because of the tight competition, companies are afraid to take risks. Remember when the USB por had just been introduced? This was a real chicken and egg situation for PC makers. No PC maker wants to be the first to switch to all USB ports because (a) it will cost more money to put the new ports into the board, and (b) they know it will annoy customers who will have to buy all peripherals. Customers will simply buy the competing brand because it's cheaper. Now, someone eventually sells a PC with both USB and PS/2 ports so you can slowly start the upgrade trend, but it's slow for all the above reasons.
Same for the floppy drive: nobody wants to be the first to ship without one. It would be seen as being "too different" and cause lost sales to the competition.
Then comes Apple with the iMac and its all-USB ports and no floppy. You want an iMac? You're getting USB. You're getting no floppy drive. There's simply no choice about it. There's no competition, either, and Apple is already known for being more expensive so that's not even a factor. Apple decides they want to push the standard forward, and frankly you have no real choice about it (if you intend to stick to Apple).
Then the market opens up (for USB) or perception changes (it's OK to not have a floppy drive) or Apple defines something cool that people copycat, and in all cases Apple's marketing engine claims credit for changing the industry. Repeat something enough times and everyone starts to believe it...
And, to be honest, there's also lots of confirmation bias going on.
One is that virtually every other company not only has to compete with Apple, but with each other. So they have to cram the most features and specs they can into a product, while making as cheap as they possibly can, in order to stay competitive.
For example, take a MacBook Pro, and find ways to make it cheaper: Well, we can replace the unibody aluminum with a plastic shell. We could remove the backlit keyboard. We could replace the glass touchpad with a cheaper part. Take out the Firewire port. Hey, look what's left: a cheap laptop. Everyone tries to get it cheaper and cheaper so they can outsell the other guys. Meanwhile, Apple puts in whatever they want and charges whatever they want, because they've built themselves up a position where they know people will still go ahead and pay it.
Also, because of the tight competition, companies are afraid to take risks. Remember when the USB por had just been introduced? This was a real chicken and egg situation for PC makers. No PC maker wants to be the first to switch to all USB ports because (a) it will cost more money to put the new ports into the board, and (b) they know it will annoy customers who will have to buy all peripherals. Customers will simply buy the competing brand because it's cheaper. Now, someone eventually sells a PC with both USB and PS/2 ports so you can slowly start the upgrade trend, but it's slow for all the above reasons.
Same for the floppy drive: nobody wants to be the first to ship without one. It would be seen as being "too different" and cause lost sales to the competition.
Then comes Apple with the iMac and its all-USB ports and no floppy. You want an iMac? You're getting USB. You're getting no floppy drive. There's simply no choice about it. There's no competition, either, and Apple is already known for being more expensive so that's not even a factor. Apple decides they want to push the standard forward, and frankly you have no real choice about it (if you intend to stick to Apple).
Then the market opens up (for USB) or perception changes (it's OK to not have a floppy drive) or Apple defines something cool that people copycat, and in all cases Apple's marketing engine claims credit for changing the industry. Repeat something enough times and everyone starts to believe it...
And, to be honest, there's also lots of confirmation bias going on.
more...
devman
Jan 13, 10:01 AM
Wow, I just watched the keynote and my god this guy is hard to stand. I've watched previous keynotes and he never seemed this bad. The charisma he's displayed in the past has been replaced with smugness. He acted like the iPhone was the second coming of christ and we were so lucky that he existed to bring it upon us.
well when you can match what he has achieved in his career, you can be more humble about it. deal?
When really, this is probably the single worst keynote for Mac users that he has ever given.
A vibrant and growing Apple Inc. is good for Mac and its users...
well when you can match what he has achieved in his career, you can be more humble about it. deal?
When really, this is probably the single worst keynote for Mac users that he has ever given.
A vibrant and growing Apple Inc. is good for Mac and its users...
Music_Producer
Jan 12, 04:18 AM
The iPhone looks pretty cool, but it's a logical progression - certainly not a revolution. If it was so revolutionary there wouldn't have been so many predictions about it. Instead, a lot of the predictions were actually aiming too high.
And it really is this fan-boy attitude of 'Steve is our hero, everything he does is wonderful' that keeps apple products so expensive. If you were all a little more critical they'd have to work a little harder to earn your money.
600 bucks for a phone (with contract) with only 8gigs of ram for my music? It's not 3G. It's got WiFi but doesn't do VOIP? I think I'll pass on this one.
Um, it's an ipod first.. and then a phone. *Only* 8 gigs for music? I would love to see you walk around with a Seagate 400 gb hard drive stuck to your ear.
Why don't you check out the Sony Ericsson W850i? Its got 4 gigs.. no camera, no wifi, no Safari, hell.. no OS X .. no phone has the photo management features of the iphone.. and it retails for $699.
And you think the iphone is expensive for what it has.. complain, complain. If you can't afford it, and you don't need it.. don't complain. It's absolutely stupid to compare pricing to other ridiculous phones when they don't even come close.
And it really is this fan-boy attitude of 'Steve is our hero, everything he does is wonderful' that keeps apple products so expensive. If you were all a little more critical they'd have to work a little harder to earn your money.
600 bucks for a phone (with contract) with only 8gigs of ram for my music? It's not 3G. It's got WiFi but doesn't do VOIP? I think I'll pass on this one.
Um, it's an ipod first.. and then a phone. *Only* 8 gigs for music? I would love to see you walk around with a Seagate 400 gb hard drive stuck to your ear.
Why don't you check out the Sony Ericsson W850i? Its got 4 gigs.. no camera, no wifi, no Safari, hell.. no OS X .. no phone has the photo management features of the iphone.. and it retails for $699.
And you think the iphone is expensive for what it has.. complain, complain. If you can't afford it, and you don't need it.. don't complain. It's absolutely stupid to compare pricing to other ridiculous phones when they don't even come close.
mi5moav
Aug 1, 08:52 AM
WHY NOT IN MY COUNTRY!!! It does blow a bit, but oh well. Fortunetly, I have a credit card and a P.O. Box in America so I don't have a problem, and you can always use gift cards.
Donz0r
Oct 3, 12:32 PM
iTV, Leopard Details, iWork/iLife updates, Laptop updates? iPod true video? (iPhone yeah right)
That seems like a lot of stuff for just one keynote. He better release that iPod video before the holidays, Market analysts are switching from Buy to Hold because of Apples poor holiday line-up. The stock has gone down about 4% in the past 2 days! that may not concern most of you, but it concerns me damnit!
Also, i want to buy new goodies!
iTV is a definite. Whether or not it's available then, at the very least the final feature set will be specified. As part of that, Apple will probably announce all Macs are updated with 802.11n (already rumored to be the case for iMacs).
I would also rate the iPhone a very high probability. Apple is not stupid and they have to strike now while the iron is hot and the iPod is still at the top of its game. Music phones by SonyEricsson, LG, Samsung, Motorola, etc. may not have made a dent in iPod sales yet, but they are bound to once they improve the crappy media player software and increase capacity (and affordable 2 GB micro/mini SD flash cards are already available).
If Apple is able to deliver an iPhone by early I predict it will sweep aside all competitors (LG Chocolate, SonyEricsson Walkman phone, etc.), and also start taking large chunks of market share of "cool" fashionista-oriented phones like RAZR and Sidekick. Not because Apple is competing on features with the RAZR or Sidekick, but rather because it will become the new "cool" phone, and most people only own one phone, after all.
If the iPhone did as well as the RAZR, it would be amazing! I really hope that happens, but personally, i hate the RAZR, not just because Everybody and their 12 year old daughter have one, but because i just don't like the design and small outside screen, although i love the huge inside screen.
Anyway, I agree that they should release the iPhone asap to tap into the MP3 playing phone market which is HUGE right now! (RAZR with media just released, LG Chololate, seems like every phone has mp3 capabilities which everyone wants, but then they get the phone and realize the capabilities SUCK on their phone.
I'd switch to cingular just for the iPhone.
That seems like a lot of stuff for just one keynote. He better release that iPod video before the holidays, Market analysts are switching from Buy to Hold because of Apples poor holiday line-up. The stock has gone down about 4% in the past 2 days! that may not concern most of you, but it concerns me damnit!
Also, i want to buy new goodies!
iTV is a definite. Whether or not it's available then, at the very least the final feature set will be specified. As part of that, Apple will probably announce all Macs are updated with 802.11n (already rumored to be the case for iMacs).
I would also rate the iPhone a very high probability. Apple is not stupid and they have to strike now while the iron is hot and the iPod is still at the top of its game. Music phones by SonyEricsson, LG, Samsung, Motorola, etc. may not have made a dent in iPod sales yet, but they are bound to once they improve the crappy media player software and increase capacity (and affordable 2 GB micro/mini SD flash cards are already available).
If Apple is able to deliver an iPhone by early I predict it will sweep aside all competitors (LG Chocolate, SonyEricsson Walkman phone, etc.), and also start taking large chunks of market share of "cool" fashionista-oriented phones like RAZR and Sidekick. Not because Apple is competing on features with the RAZR or Sidekick, but rather because it will become the new "cool" phone, and most people only own one phone, after all.
If the iPhone did as well as the RAZR, it would be amazing! I really hope that happens, but personally, i hate the RAZR, not just because Everybody and their 12 year old daughter have one, but because i just don't like the design and small outside screen, although i love the huge inside screen.
Anyway, I agree that they should release the iPhone asap to tap into the MP3 playing phone market which is HUGE right now! (RAZR with media just released, LG Chololate, seems like every phone has mp3 capabilities which everyone wants, but then they get the phone and realize the capabilities SUCK on their phone.
I'd switch to cingular just for the iPhone.
martymcr
Nov 27, 06:01 AM
It says it's a "shopping event" (http://www.apple.com/uk/retail/shopping/?CDM-EU-0994) though, not a sale.
It's hard to decide from the ad whether it means special prices or not - I'm about to order a Macbook and can't decide if it's worth waiting!!
It's hard to decide from the ad whether it means special prices or not - I'm about to order a Macbook and can't decide if it's worth waiting!!
balamw
Apr 27, 08:11 PM
If you posted up the full code of your viewController, we might even be able to point you in the right direction. The more you are specific, the better we can help.
Yup. Again, divide and conquer. If you don't want to share your entire code because it does something else, you don't want to reveal, pull out what is needed to demonstrate the problem into a test app to figure it out.
If you post nominally compilable code you are more likely to get to your desired answers faster.
B
Yup. Again, divide and conquer. If you don't want to share your entire code because it does something else, you don't want to reveal, pull out what is needed to demonstrate the problem into a test app to figure it out.
If you post nominally compilable code you are more likely to get to your desired answers faster.
B
snberk103
Apr 17, 04:43 PM
What security problem?
You know what kills more Americans than terrorism every year? Peanut allergies. Swimming pools. Deer running in front of cars.
Pat downs, body scanners, and TSA in generally are about "security theater." The government puts on a big show so the poor little sheep who are afraid of the big bad muslim wolves feel better.
So how about we all stop letting politicians play on our fears, stop feeding money to the contractors who design useless crap like body scanners and stop giving up constitutional rights all in the name of preventing a "danger" that's significantly less likely to kill you than a lightning strike.
I believe that's faulty logic. Using seat belts has cut the number of fatalities for car passengers by 50% to 75% (depending on the rate of seat belt usage in a jurisdiction - USA/Canada). Because very few people are now killed in car crashes, you are saying we should stop enforcing the seat belt laws?
Or because so many fewer people are now dying due to drunk driving we should stop enforcing those laws?
I'm not sure your logic supports your conclusion.
You know what kills more Americans than terrorism every year? Peanut allergies. Swimming pools. Deer running in front of cars.
Pat downs, body scanners, and TSA in generally are about "security theater." The government puts on a big show so the poor little sheep who are afraid of the big bad muslim wolves feel better.
So how about we all stop letting politicians play on our fears, stop feeding money to the contractors who design useless crap like body scanners and stop giving up constitutional rights all in the name of preventing a "danger" that's significantly less likely to kill you than a lightning strike.
I believe that's faulty logic. Using seat belts has cut the number of fatalities for car passengers by 50% to 75% (depending on the rate of seat belt usage in a jurisdiction - USA/Canada). Because very few people are now killed in car crashes, you are saying we should stop enforcing the seat belt laws?
Or because so many fewer people are now dying due to drunk driving we should stop enforcing those laws?
I'm not sure your logic supports your conclusion.
SeaFox
Oct 29, 01:00 AM
Why hasn't there been a 'universal' version of Photoshop yet? Because the hard core digital imaging people are hanging on to their G5's.
No, you have it backwards. Software companies don't release products because the hardware is out there. They release because they've added new features and want user to upgrade and new consumers to come. Consumers buy the hardware because the software is available for it. A computer without software is just a really expensive paper weight. It's Adobe's lack of a native Creative Suite than keeps professionals from picking up MacPros - and Apple said just that during their last financial results call.
You think graphic designers aren't interested in getting an Intel Mac and the performance gains that come with it? They get higher performance running Photoshop on the G5's they have now than running it on the Intel Macs under Rosetta. So why spend the money to degrade your production apps?
Adobe has nothing to gain from not releasing a native Creative Suite. I mean, it's not like Apple is going to hold a press conference tomorrow and announce they are going back to IBM chips. This is the future and if Adobe doesn't ship a new Creative Suite they will be no different than the companies that never ported their apps to PPC native versions and stayed with 68k - giving up.
No, you have it backwards. Software companies don't release products because the hardware is out there. They release because they've added new features and want user to upgrade and new consumers to come. Consumers buy the hardware because the software is available for it. A computer without software is just a really expensive paper weight. It's Adobe's lack of a native Creative Suite than keeps professionals from picking up MacPros - and Apple said just that during their last financial results call.
You think graphic designers aren't interested in getting an Intel Mac and the performance gains that come with it? They get higher performance running Photoshop on the G5's they have now than running it on the Intel Macs under Rosetta. So why spend the money to degrade your production apps?
Adobe has nothing to gain from not releasing a native Creative Suite. I mean, it's not like Apple is going to hold a press conference tomorrow and announce they are going back to IBM chips. This is the future and if Adobe doesn't ship a new Creative Suite they will be no different than the companies that never ported their apps to PPC native versions and stayed with 68k - giving up.
No comments:
Post a Comment