Peace
Apr 15, 12:30 PM
Using aluminum would hinder the cellular reception wouldn't it ?
AlBDamned
Nov 10, 03:11 PM
Overall I'm much happier with this game than I ever was with Modern Warfare 2 which I only ever played FFA on and people always used to cheat by using Tactical Insertion to sit next to each other and get free kills.
Free-for-all is fun, and I agree that the TI cheat was irritating, but FFA is really only scratching the surface of the multiplayer. Either way, there's no doubting for me that Black Ops is jerky, graphically and sonically inferior, and basically a poor cousin. Roll on MW3. I think I might sell Black Ops it's that bad.
Free-for-all is fun, and I agree that the TI cheat was irritating, but FFA is really only scratching the surface of the multiplayer. Either way, there's no doubting for me that Black Ops is jerky, graphically and sonically inferior, and basically a poor cousin. Roll on MW3. I think I might sell Black Ops it's that bad.
milo
Sep 12, 08:16 AM
I can't imagine why Apple would have an event like this if there was going to be only Disney content available.
You need a new imagination. Or at least remember back to when they had an event to release TV videos, and only ABC content was available.
Not to mention that there will be iPod and streaming hardware announced as well.
So who is going to watch Snow White?
No... Bambi?
Or what about Lady and the Tramp?
FYI, "Disney" also includes Miramax, Hollywood Pictures, and Touchstone. That's hundreds of movies for adults.
You need a new imagination. Or at least remember back to when they had an event to release TV videos, and only ABC content was available.
Not to mention that there will be iPod and streaming hardware announced as well.
So who is going to watch Snow White?
No... Bambi?
Or what about Lady and the Tramp?
FYI, "Disney" also includes Miramax, Hollywood Pictures, and Touchstone. That's hundreds of movies for adults.
Hastings101
May 3, 10:05 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8H7)
Apple commercials are bright, uplifting and show how technology enhances the human experience. They show people using iPads, iPhones, MacBooks, etc in everyday situations. However Android Zoom, BB Playbook, Tab are dark, joyless with people abducted by aliens, enveloped and overpowered by machines, etc.
I think there's something magical and revolutionary about getting kidnapped by aliens and overpowered by machines. You just don't see that stuff happening too often in life, and we need to enjoy it when it happens.
Apple commercials are bright, uplifting and show how technology enhances the human experience. They show people using iPads, iPhones, MacBooks, etc in everyday situations. However Android Zoom, BB Playbook, Tab are dark, joyless with people abducted by aliens, enveloped and overpowered by machines, etc.
I think there's something magical and revolutionary about getting kidnapped by aliens and overpowered by machines. You just don't see that stuff happening too often in life, and we need to enjoy it when it happens.
Lord Blackadder
Aug 10, 01:10 PM
There's nothing really sinister about it. It's just harder to measure and to this point, there's been no point in trying to measure it in comparison to cars.
I understand that they have to be measured differently, but doesn't it make sense that they be compared apples-to-apples (if possible) to the vehicles they are intended to replace?
Most people do ignore it to a large extent, because they say "heck, if it costs me $1 to go 40 miles on electric vs. $2.85 to go 40 miles on gasoline, then that *must* be more efficient in some way". And they are probably right. Economics do tend to line up with efficiency (or government policy).
That is true, but as you pointed out later "green", "efficient", "alternative[to oil imports]" are not all the same thing. Perhaps they are more green but less efficient, or less efficient but more green. Just being more efficient in terms of bang for buck is not necessarily also good from an environmental or alternative energy standpoint. But you are right that the end cost per mile is going to weigh heavily when it comes to consumer acceptance of new types of autos.
I think it's great that European car manufacturers have invested heavily in finding ways to make more fuel efficient cars. And they have their governments to thank for that by making sure that diesel is given a tax advantage vs. gasoline. About 15 years ago, Europe recognized the potential for efficiency in diesels to ultimately outweigh the environmental downside. It was a short-term risk that paid off and now that they have shifted the balance, Europe is tightening their diesel emissions standards to match the US. Once that happens, I'm sure there will a huge market for TDIs in the US and we'll have a nice competitive landscape for driving-up fuel efficiency with diesels vs. gasoline hybrids vs. extended range electrics.
I would argue that Europe's switch to diesels did not involve quite the environmental tradeoff you imply - in the 70s we in the US were driving cars with huge gasoline engines, and to this day diesel regulation for trucks in this country is pretty minimal. Our emissions were probably world-leading then - partially due to the fact that we had the most cars on the roads by far. The problem lies (in my heavily biased opinion) in ignorance. People see smoke coming off diesel exhausts and assume they are dirtier than gasoline engines. But particulate pollution is not necessarily worse, just different. People are not educated about the differerence between gasoline engine pollution and diesel engine pollution. Not to mention the fact that diesel engines don't puff black smoke like they did in the 70s. I'm not arguing that diesels are necessarily cleaner, but they are arguably no worse than gasoline engines and are certainly more efficient.
Whether or not it's "greener" depends upon your definition of green. If you're worried about smog and air quality, then you might make different decisions than if you are worried about carbon dioxide and global warming. Those decisions may also be driven by where you live and where the electricity comes from.
A lot of people in the US (and I assume around the world) are also concerned about energy independence. For those people, using coal to power an electric car is more attractive than using foreign diesel. Any cleaner? Probably not, but probably not much dirtier and certainly cheaper. Our government realizes that we can always make power plants cleaner in the future through regulation, just as Europe realized they could make diesels cleaner in the future through regulation. Steven Chu is no dummy.
It's a fair point. Given the choice, I would prioritize moving to domestic fuel sources in the short term over a massive "go green" (over all alse) campaign.
Which is why we will need new metrics that actually make sense for comparing gasoline to pure electric, perhaps localized to account for the source of power in your area. For example, when I lived in Chicago, the electric was 90% nuclear. It's doesn't get any cleaner than that from an air quality / greenhouse gas standpoint. However, if you're on the east coast, it's probably closer to 60% coal.
I agree completely. The transition needs to be made as transparent as possible. People need to know the source, efficiency and cleanliness of their power source so that they can make informed choices.
I think you're smart enough to know that it's more efficient, but you're not willing to cede that for the sake of your argument, but I encourage you to embrace the idea that we should have extended range electrics *and* clean diesels *and* gasoline hybrids. There's more than one way to skin a cat.
I'm not trying to sound stubborn, I simply have not come accross the numbers anywhere. I don't get paid to do this research, ya know. I do it while hiding from the boss. ;)
I've seen that propaganda FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) before. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Let's consider that the power grid can handle every household running an air conditioner on a hot summer day. That's approximately 2000-3500 watts per household per hour during daytime peak load (on top of everything else on the grid.) Now let's consider that a Volt (or equivalent) has a 16kw battery that charges in 8 hours. That's 200 watts per hour, starting in the evening, or the equivalent of (4) 50 watt light bulbs. This is not exactly grid-overwhelming load.
I'm no math whiz (or electrician), but wouldn't 200 watts/hr * 8 hours = 1.6kw, rather than 16kw? I thought you'd need 2kw/hr * 8hrs to charge a 16kw battery.
It's not that I don't think people have looked into this stuff, it's just that I myself have no information on just how much energy the Volt uses and how much the grid can provide. In the short term, plugin hybrids are few in number and I don't see it being an issue. But it's something we need to work out in the medium/long term.
Or, some would argue that the biggest thing that Americans have trouble with are a few people telling them what the majority should or shouldn't do - which is, as it seems, the definition of "Communism", but I wouldn't go so far as to say that. :)
Communism means nothing in this country, because we've been so brainwashed by Cold War/right-wing rhetoric that, like "freedom", the term has been stolen for propaganda purposes until the original meanings have become lost in a massive sea of BS. I was using it for it's hyperbole value. :D
Most people do indeed realize that they can get better mileage with a smaller car and could "get by" with a much smaller vehicle. They choose not to and that is their prerogative. If the majority wants to vote for representatives who will make laws that increase fuel mileage standards, which in turn require automakers to sell more small cars - or find ways to make them more efficient - that is also their prerogative. (And, in case you haven't noticed, in the last major US election, voters did indeed vote for a party that is increasing CAFE standards.)
Well, that's the nature of democracy. But it's not so much a question of the fact that people realize a smaller car is more efficient, but a question of whether people really care about efficiency. I have recently lived in Nevada and Alaska, two states whose residents are addicted to burning fuel. Seemingly everyone has a pickup, RV and four-wheelers. Burning fuel is not just part of the daily transportation routine - it's a lifestyle.
CAFE standardsAnd if it's important to you, you should do your part and ride a bike to work or buy a TDI, or lobby your congressman for reduced emissions requirements, or stand up on a soap box and preach about the advantages of advanced clean diesel technology. All good stuff.
I walk to work. I used to commute 34 miles a day (total), and while I never minded it, I felt pretty liberated being able to ditch the car for my daily commute. Four years of walking and I don't want to go back. I love cars and motorsport, and I don't consider myself an environmentalist, but I got to the point where I realized that I was driving a lot more than necessary. That realization came when I moved out of a suburb (where you have to drive to get anywhere) and into first a small town and then a biggish city. In both cases it became possible to walk almost everywhere I needed to go. A tank of fuel lasted over a month (or longer) rather than a week from my highway-commuting days. And I lost weight as I hauled by fat backside around on foot. ;)
I won't be in the market for another car for a few years, and my current car (a Subaru) is not very fuel efficient - but then again it has literally not been driven more than half a dozen times in the last six months. When the time comes to replace it I'll be looking for something affordable (ruling out the Volt) but efficiency will be high on the priority list, followed by green-ness.
I wonder if all of you people who are proposing a diesel/diesel hybrid are Europeans, because in America, diesel is looked at as smelly and messy - it's what the trucks with black smoke use.
<snip>
As far as the Chevy Volt goes, I just don't like the name... but the price is right assuming they can get it into the high $20,000's rather quickly.
I'm an American, and yes I've seen the trucks with black smoke. We just need to discard that preconception. This isn't 1973 anymore. We also need to tighten up emissions regualtion on trucks.
The Volt is a practical car by all acoioutns, but it costs way too much. The battery is the primary contributing factor, I've heard that it costs somewhere between $8-15k by itself. Hopefully after GM has been producing such batteries for a few years the cost will drop substantially.
I understand that they have to be measured differently, but doesn't it make sense that they be compared apples-to-apples (if possible) to the vehicles they are intended to replace?
Most people do ignore it to a large extent, because they say "heck, if it costs me $1 to go 40 miles on electric vs. $2.85 to go 40 miles on gasoline, then that *must* be more efficient in some way". And they are probably right. Economics do tend to line up with efficiency (or government policy).
That is true, but as you pointed out later "green", "efficient", "alternative[to oil imports]" are not all the same thing. Perhaps they are more green but less efficient, or less efficient but more green. Just being more efficient in terms of bang for buck is not necessarily also good from an environmental or alternative energy standpoint. But you are right that the end cost per mile is going to weigh heavily when it comes to consumer acceptance of new types of autos.
I think it's great that European car manufacturers have invested heavily in finding ways to make more fuel efficient cars. And they have their governments to thank for that by making sure that diesel is given a tax advantage vs. gasoline. About 15 years ago, Europe recognized the potential for efficiency in diesels to ultimately outweigh the environmental downside. It was a short-term risk that paid off and now that they have shifted the balance, Europe is tightening their diesel emissions standards to match the US. Once that happens, I'm sure there will a huge market for TDIs in the US and we'll have a nice competitive landscape for driving-up fuel efficiency with diesels vs. gasoline hybrids vs. extended range electrics.
I would argue that Europe's switch to diesels did not involve quite the environmental tradeoff you imply - in the 70s we in the US were driving cars with huge gasoline engines, and to this day diesel regulation for trucks in this country is pretty minimal. Our emissions were probably world-leading then - partially due to the fact that we had the most cars on the roads by far. The problem lies (in my heavily biased opinion) in ignorance. People see smoke coming off diesel exhausts and assume they are dirtier than gasoline engines. But particulate pollution is not necessarily worse, just different. People are not educated about the differerence between gasoline engine pollution and diesel engine pollution. Not to mention the fact that diesel engines don't puff black smoke like they did in the 70s. I'm not arguing that diesels are necessarily cleaner, but they are arguably no worse than gasoline engines and are certainly more efficient.
Whether or not it's "greener" depends upon your definition of green. If you're worried about smog and air quality, then you might make different decisions than if you are worried about carbon dioxide and global warming. Those decisions may also be driven by where you live and where the electricity comes from.
A lot of people in the US (and I assume around the world) are also concerned about energy independence. For those people, using coal to power an electric car is more attractive than using foreign diesel. Any cleaner? Probably not, but probably not much dirtier and certainly cheaper. Our government realizes that we can always make power plants cleaner in the future through regulation, just as Europe realized they could make diesels cleaner in the future through regulation. Steven Chu is no dummy.
It's a fair point. Given the choice, I would prioritize moving to domestic fuel sources in the short term over a massive "go green" (over all alse) campaign.
Which is why we will need new metrics that actually make sense for comparing gasoline to pure electric, perhaps localized to account for the source of power in your area. For example, when I lived in Chicago, the electric was 90% nuclear. It's doesn't get any cleaner than that from an air quality / greenhouse gas standpoint. However, if you're on the east coast, it's probably closer to 60% coal.
I agree completely. The transition needs to be made as transparent as possible. People need to know the source, efficiency and cleanliness of their power source so that they can make informed choices.
I think you're smart enough to know that it's more efficient, but you're not willing to cede that for the sake of your argument, but I encourage you to embrace the idea that we should have extended range electrics *and* clean diesels *and* gasoline hybrids. There's more than one way to skin a cat.
I'm not trying to sound stubborn, I simply have not come accross the numbers anywhere. I don't get paid to do this research, ya know. I do it while hiding from the boss. ;)
I've seen that propaganda FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) before. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Let's consider that the power grid can handle every household running an air conditioner on a hot summer day. That's approximately 2000-3500 watts per household per hour during daytime peak load (on top of everything else on the grid.) Now let's consider that a Volt (or equivalent) has a 16kw battery that charges in 8 hours. That's 200 watts per hour, starting in the evening, or the equivalent of (4) 50 watt light bulbs. This is not exactly grid-overwhelming load.
I'm no math whiz (or electrician), but wouldn't 200 watts/hr * 8 hours = 1.6kw, rather than 16kw? I thought you'd need 2kw/hr * 8hrs to charge a 16kw battery.
It's not that I don't think people have looked into this stuff, it's just that I myself have no information on just how much energy the Volt uses and how much the grid can provide. In the short term, plugin hybrids are few in number and I don't see it being an issue. But it's something we need to work out in the medium/long term.
Or, some would argue that the biggest thing that Americans have trouble with are a few people telling them what the majority should or shouldn't do - which is, as it seems, the definition of "Communism", but I wouldn't go so far as to say that. :)
Communism means nothing in this country, because we've been so brainwashed by Cold War/right-wing rhetoric that, like "freedom", the term has been stolen for propaganda purposes until the original meanings have become lost in a massive sea of BS. I was using it for it's hyperbole value. :D
Most people do indeed realize that they can get better mileage with a smaller car and could "get by" with a much smaller vehicle. They choose not to and that is their prerogative. If the majority wants to vote for representatives who will make laws that increase fuel mileage standards, which in turn require automakers to sell more small cars - or find ways to make them more efficient - that is also their prerogative. (And, in case you haven't noticed, in the last major US election, voters did indeed vote for a party that is increasing CAFE standards.)
Well, that's the nature of democracy. But it's not so much a question of the fact that people realize a smaller car is more efficient, but a question of whether people really care about efficiency. I have recently lived in Nevada and Alaska, two states whose residents are addicted to burning fuel. Seemingly everyone has a pickup, RV and four-wheelers. Burning fuel is not just part of the daily transportation routine - it's a lifestyle.
CAFE standardsAnd if it's important to you, you should do your part and ride a bike to work or buy a TDI, or lobby your congressman for reduced emissions requirements, or stand up on a soap box and preach about the advantages of advanced clean diesel technology. All good stuff.
I walk to work. I used to commute 34 miles a day (total), and while I never minded it, I felt pretty liberated being able to ditch the car for my daily commute. Four years of walking and I don't want to go back. I love cars and motorsport, and I don't consider myself an environmentalist, but I got to the point where I realized that I was driving a lot more than necessary. That realization came when I moved out of a suburb (where you have to drive to get anywhere) and into first a small town and then a biggish city. In both cases it became possible to walk almost everywhere I needed to go. A tank of fuel lasted over a month (or longer) rather than a week from my highway-commuting days. And I lost weight as I hauled by fat backside around on foot. ;)
I won't be in the market for another car for a few years, and my current car (a Subaru) is not very fuel efficient - but then again it has literally not been driven more than half a dozen times in the last six months. When the time comes to replace it I'll be looking for something affordable (ruling out the Volt) but efficiency will be high on the priority list, followed by green-ness.
I wonder if all of you people who are proposing a diesel/diesel hybrid are Europeans, because in America, diesel is looked at as smelly and messy - it's what the trucks with black smoke use.
<snip>
As far as the Chevy Volt goes, I just don't like the name... but the price is right assuming they can get it into the high $20,000's rather quickly.
I'm an American, and yes I've seen the trucks with black smoke. We just need to discard that preconception. This isn't 1973 anymore. We also need to tighten up emissions regualtion on trucks.
The Volt is a practical car by all acoioutns, but it costs way too much. The battery is the primary contributing factor, I've heard that it costs somewhere between $8-15k by itself. Hopefully after GM has been producing such batteries for a few years the cost will drop substantially.
MrSmith
Jan 11, 07:13 PM
I think the "hilarious" part must have slipped me by. :confused:
SPEEDwithJJ
Mar 17, 12:43 AM
Are you a Best Buy Reward Zone member? If yes, did you use your account when you check out the iPad?
AnalyzeThis
Dec 16, 05:10 PM
Sure! What YEAR?
Cassie
Jan 13, 03:44 AM
And white text is not the best choice, because the background of MacRumors isn't white, it is color #FAFAFA. Get with the program people.
I beg to differ.:)
I beg to differ.:)
Marky Mark
Sep 28, 03:15 PM
Is the update available now?
Just ran software update and there are updates for all the iLife apps.
It specifically states 'avoid incompatibility with Aperture 1.5". I guess they're adding the Aperture integration so it can't be far away!
Just ran software update and there are updates for all the iLife apps.
It specifically states 'avoid incompatibility with Aperture 1.5". I guess they're adding the Aperture integration so it can't be far away!
Cromulent
Nov 10, 10:04 AM
I have to say this game kicks the crap out of Modern Warfare 2 which felt dull and boring in multiplayer mode. The maps are far more varied than in Modern Warfare 2 and much more interesting. The game modes are pretty good and the best thing about it is the customisation you can do. Plus the new leader boards are good for those of us who are pretty competitive.
Overall I'm much happier with this game than I ever was with Modern Warfare 2 which I only ever played FFA on and people always used to cheat by using Tactical Insertion to sit next to each other and get free kills.
Overall I'm much happier with this game than I ever was with Modern Warfare 2 which I only ever played FFA on and people always used to cheat by using Tactical Insertion to sit next to each other and get free kills.
starstreak
Jul 21, 06:40 PM
Ok yeah,yeah whatevers Apple. You need to do a hardware fix. Quit pointing fingers. Because unless you can tell me, the other phones in question sold 3million AND told their users that their phone is awesome cuz they made the attenna better, you're not gonna get me to stop thinking Apple is da bomb.
ThunderSkunk
Apr 29, 06:39 PM
Hm. I hate to say it but I'm preparing to be a little disappointed.
The shading of a button is about the most minor UI change I could think of, compared to the big changes I was expecting. As for the color schema, I thought i'd be glossy black... like imovie, fcp, etc... nice clean, high contrast, classy look, keeps your focus on your content.
But I guess I was expecting some next-generation stuff, like a semi-intelligent contextual version of Finder that'd closer integrate into applications, to put compatible files at your fingertips, & make the OS work with you, instead of be worked by you.
...Integration of cross-OS applications, like auto-syncable iWork, Garageband, iMovie projects, etc... so your content can be worked on seamlessly from one device to another & allow us to focus even more on our content & less on our tools.
an 20 foot voice activated foldable touchscreens and and... i know, i know...
The shading of a button is about the most minor UI change I could think of, compared to the big changes I was expecting. As for the color schema, I thought i'd be glossy black... like imovie, fcp, etc... nice clean, high contrast, classy look, keeps your focus on your content.
But I guess I was expecting some next-generation stuff, like a semi-intelligent contextual version of Finder that'd closer integrate into applications, to put compatible files at your fingertips, & make the OS work with you, instead of be worked by you.
...Integration of cross-OS applications, like auto-syncable iWork, Garageband, iMovie projects, etc... so your content can be worked on seamlessly from one device to another & allow us to focus even more on our content & less on our tools.
an 20 foot voice activated foldable touchscreens and and... i know, i know...
Kenya
Oct 3, 01:10 PM
There should have been an option for MacBook Pro chip/case/features update. I would have voted for that one.
macman2790
Nov 16, 01:14 PM
who wants to run amd anyway?
gamers that want to switch to mac but wont because of intel, which is stupid. AMD fanboys hate intel also(there is a signifigant amount of these people). They still haven't realised that intel has taken the lead again.
gamers that want to switch to mac but wont because of intel, which is stupid. AMD fanboys hate intel also(there is a signifigant amount of these people). They still haven't realised that intel has taken the lead again.
dsnort
Aug 1, 01:57 PM
Problem is Demark, Norway and Sweden are just the first countries to really crack down on DRM like this but they will not be the last. Pulling iTMS away from them might work right now but think long term. The 3 counties will not be the last to do it. Other will follow suit with the DRM. France will at some point get the laws passed since they are pretty close to DRM set up like that with ones that went though so it would not be much of a surpise to see France force DRM to open up there as well. I could see most of the EU at some point forcing the issue.
Should apple pull iTMS away from every country that does that. No it will catch up to them and they will just open up to all. Problem is any country the pulled out of they burned those bridges and will have a very hard time getting back in and will more than likely lose a lot of market share long term by pulling that stunt.
Long term the wises action is for apple to give in and just open it up because those countries are just the first and they most certanily will not be the last.
I have always thought Apple would eventually open up it's DRM of their own free will. At this time, there is no serious competitor to the iPod/iTunes combo. Should serious competition arise, perhaps sometime Zune, the iPods inability to play music from other sources will be a competitive disadvantage.
However, as a philosophical issue, I have a problem with any government interfering like this in a free market! Sometimes such interference is necessary to prevent harm to the public, but I don't see where this is the case with the iPod. It doesn't cause injury to the user, ( if you heed the volume warnings ), and there are alternatives. Those who don't like iPod/iTunes locking them in to one player are fully free to use the alternatives!
Should apple pull iTMS away from every country that does that. No it will catch up to them and they will just open up to all. Problem is any country the pulled out of they burned those bridges and will have a very hard time getting back in and will more than likely lose a lot of market share long term by pulling that stunt.
Long term the wises action is for apple to give in and just open it up because those countries are just the first and they most certanily will not be the last.
I have always thought Apple would eventually open up it's DRM of their own free will. At this time, there is no serious competitor to the iPod/iTunes combo. Should serious competition arise, perhaps sometime Zune, the iPods inability to play music from other sources will be a competitive disadvantage.
However, as a philosophical issue, I have a problem with any government interfering like this in a free market! Sometimes such interference is necessary to prevent harm to the public, but I don't see where this is the case with the iPod. It doesn't cause injury to the user, ( if you heed the volume warnings ), and there are alternatives. Those who don't like iPod/iTunes locking them in to one player are fully free to use the alternatives!
Nitrocide
Apr 15, 07:37 PM
The design is nice and I honestly wouldn't doubt that Apple might make the new iphone similar to this since the macs and the ipad are taking that turn, however like others have said, this is a fake because the aluminum would block the 3G receiver. Unless Apple magically found a way to get around that issue! which would be AMAZING!
Here is an idea, because the apple logo is black plastic, why not put the 3G receiver behind the Apple logo? ;)
Because they have enough issue with reception when the whole back is plastic. On my existing phone if you cover the relatively small aerial part with your hand reception gets a kicking drastically, im guessing the apple logo is generally covered when your holding the phone for a call.
Here is an idea, because the apple logo is black plastic, why not put the 3G receiver behind the Apple logo? ;)
Because they have enough issue with reception when the whole back is plastic. On my existing phone if you cover the relatively small aerial part with your hand reception gets a kicking drastically, im guessing the apple logo is generally covered when your holding the phone for a call.
jowie
Apr 29, 03:53 PM
Great news. Glad to see Apple taking a leaf out of their own guidelines... A touch OS has a different interface for a reason.
Ommid
Apr 25, 11:49 AM
4s ftw.
BlueRevolution
Oct 28, 07:34 PM
I rue the day when Apple has to try and lock down OSX like MS is forced to attempt with Vista!
OS X doesn't even have a serial number in the boxes. Apple's lack of caring of this extends to the point where they haven't even bothered to have the ability to tell the difference between a pirated copy and a legitimate copy of the OS. I don't see tyrannical anti-piracy policy coming anytime soon, and I don't see Apple taking drastic measures to prevent OS X on beige boxes soon either.
Everyone seems to be forgetting the math of piracy. It's not
gross profit = (unit price) (units in use - units pirated)
it's
gross profit = (unit price) (units in use - units pirated + sales gained due to piracy)
This will be especially noticeable in Apple's case, where people that might never otherwise have the opportunity or inclination to try out OS X download it onto their PCs, fall in love with it and their next computer is a Mac. Not only has Apple made a software sale, they have also sold a piece of $2k hardware with a 20% profit margin. I personally know people that have done this.
I think that prettymuch alone of large software companies, Apple sees the other side of piracy. It's never a given that you're a pirate OR you buy software/music/movies/games/whatever in stores.
OS X doesn't even have a serial number in the boxes. Apple's lack of caring of this extends to the point where they haven't even bothered to have the ability to tell the difference between a pirated copy and a legitimate copy of the OS. I don't see tyrannical anti-piracy policy coming anytime soon, and I don't see Apple taking drastic measures to prevent OS X on beige boxes soon either.
Everyone seems to be forgetting the math of piracy. It's not
gross profit = (unit price) (units in use - units pirated)
it's
gross profit = (unit price) (units in use - units pirated + sales gained due to piracy)
This will be especially noticeable in Apple's case, where people that might never otherwise have the opportunity or inclination to try out OS X download it onto their PCs, fall in love with it and their next computer is a Mac. Not only has Apple made a software sale, they have also sold a piece of $2k hardware with a 20% profit margin. I personally know people that have done this.
I think that prettymuch alone of large software companies, Apple sees the other side of piracy. It's never a given that you're a pirate OR you buy software/music/movies/games/whatever in stores.
nwcs
May 2, 11:07 AM
4. Those getting pissy at people who are calling Apple out on this or are blaming the customer since Apple has it in their EULA that they collect data so it's no big deal should consider that if the switch to turn of Data Roaming FAILED and people were charged up the wazoo - people would be demanding refunds for that data and would demand a fix.
But this has nothing to do with data roaming and it wasn't something that caused money to be spent. Bad comparison.
But this has nothing to do with data roaming and it wasn't something that caused money to be spent. Bad comparison.
Sky Blue
Mar 28, 02:22 PM
It's a little cheeky, sure, but the Design Award isn't really anything but marketing opportunity for the devs.
insignificantMB
Apr 25, 12:40 PM
Awe, and I was looking forward to the ipod touch looking mockup.
Cloudane
Jan 11, 04:49 AM
It would be great if the price went down. There should also be some updates, but concentrating on a lower price, as PCs that are the same speed are much less.
Yes, and look what happens. You get what you pay for (as I discovered with my 20" iMac with its bargain basement screen!)
I would hope "cheap" Macs would be an addition to, rather than a replacement of, decent quality ones.
Yes, and look what happens. You get what you pay for (as I discovered with my 20" iMac with its bargain basement screen!)
I would hope "cheap" Macs would be an addition to, rather than a replacement of, decent quality ones.