IBradMac
Apr 15, 08:24 PM
thats a lot of ports. :eek:
Prof.
Apr 5, 04:19 PM
Note from Apple, inc.:
iAd Gallery will come preinstalled in every future iPhone, iPod, and iPad. For existing customers, iAd Gallery will be added to iOS 5. It will be impossible to delete. If you do delete it, your warranty will be void.
Thank you for your cooperation.
:apple:
iAd Gallery will come preinstalled in every future iPhone, iPod, and iPad. For existing customers, iAd Gallery will be added to iOS 5. It will be impossible to delete. If you do delete it, your warranty will be void.
Thank you for your cooperation.
:apple:
Optimus Frag
May 4, 06:44 AM
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) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
I've no real need for an iPad and as such, no need for a tablet. But having had a go with the 'competitor's' including the so called iPad killer, Xoom, I think Apple have already won. These iPad ads are just confirming that to the public.
I've no real need for an iPad and as such, no need for a tablet. But having had a go with the 'competitor's' including the so called iPad killer, Xoom, I think Apple have already won. These iPad ads are just confirming that to the public.
dicklacara
Jul 21, 01:25 PM
But Apple admitted that it DOES drop more calls than 3GS.
They spun it as "less than 1 per 100", but assuming all 3,000,000 iPhone 4 users make about 5 calls per day, that's over ONE MILLION dropped calls per week MORE than iPhone 3GS.
It's a problem.
It's been reproduced by CNET, Consumer Reports, NYT, and many others.
The debate here is not whether there's a problem, but why Apple is obfuscating, rather than fixing it, pretending that bridging the gap of their electrically exposed antenna is equivalent to attenuating an antenna by completely covering it with one's meaty hand.
(seems like moving this gap to the bottom edge of the phone where it's far less likely to be touched, would be an easy fix).
Couple of things:
1) What isn't factored into your calculations is that because of its more-sensitive antenna, the iP4 was able to make calls, in marginal signal areas, where the 3GS showed no signal and was not able to attempt or receive a call... dropping any of these "never-before-possible" calls would reflect poorly on the iP4, and be included in the "< 1 call per hundred" more dropped calls by the iP4.
2) <1 per 100 more dropped calls by the iP4 than the 3GS. "< 1" can mean anything from, say, .0000000001 to .9999999999. Without knowing the real delta fraction it is difficult to base calculations on it.
3) The 3GS came into being with a plethora of available cases-- the iP4 with 1 case, that was in so short supply as to be non-available. Apple stated that 80% of the 3GSs left their store with a case. So, many 3Gs had 2 layers of antenna shielding, the 3GS plastic housing and an external case. The bulk of iP4s had neither-- 0 levels of antenna shielding.
All of this has been widely reported (or obvious) to those who care to objectively examine the facts. So it is a bit disingenuous to make your assertions, without qualification.
.
They spun it as "less than 1 per 100", but assuming all 3,000,000 iPhone 4 users make about 5 calls per day, that's over ONE MILLION dropped calls per week MORE than iPhone 3GS.
It's a problem.
It's been reproduced by CNET, Consumer Reports, NYT, and many others.
The debate here is not whether there's a problem, but why Apple is obfuscating, rather than fixing it, pretending that bridging the gap of their electrically exposed antenna is equivalent to attenuating an antenna by completely covering it with one's meaty hand.
(seems like moving this gap to the bottom edge of the phone where it's far less likely to be touched, would be an easy fix).
Couple of things:
1) What isn't factored into your calculations is that because of its more-sensitive antenna, the iP4 was able to make calls, in marginal signal areas, where the 3GS showed no signal and was not able to attempt or receive a call... dropping any of these "never-before-possible" calls would reflect poorly on the iP4, and be included in the "< 1 call per hundred" more dropped calls by the iP4.
2) <1 per 100 more dropped calls by the iP4 than the 3GS. "< 1" can mean anything from, say, .0000000001 to .9999999999. Without knowing the real delta fraction it is difficult to base calculations on it.
3) The 3GS came into being with a plethora of available cases-- the iP4 with 1 case, that was in so short supply as to be non-available. Apple stated that 80% of the 3GSs left their store with a case. So, many 3Gs had 2 layers of antenna shielding, the 3GS plastic housing and an external case. The bulk of iP4s had neither-- 0 levels of antenna shielding.
All of this has been widely reported (or obvious) to those who care to objectively examine the facts. So it is a bit disingenuous to make your assertions, without qualification.
.
dynamo22
Oct 6, 12:26 PM
wow first the Verizon network has the most 3G coverage, now they say that BlackBerry's run better on it too! I think big red is looking really good come December :p
nimasm
Jan 15, 02:44 PM
zimtheinvader you're right: MBA does not compare favourably to other products available. Thinness is a nice quality, and indeed it gives that premium edge to the MBA that other UMPCs lack, but Apple's seeming need to give you a full-featured, full-screen, full-clock speed computer is contrary to the needs of ultraportability. While I don't begrudge the Core 2 processor, nor the ample RAM, I can't say that a 13.3" widescreen is essential. (Indeed, if you're aiming for portability, then the dinosaur 4:3 format offers a greater ratio of screen area to overall dimensions).
I recently had the opportunity to borrow an Asus Eee PC, and was blown away by the advantages of its form factor. It was solidly built, confidence inspring, yet portable. The MBA makes me worry about potential flimsiness. How will it compared to a Macbook if bashed in the centre of the lid. The Eee PC, while slow and cramped, at least has rigidity
Moreover, do people really want to pay more for a compromised solution? Compare the Eee PC at �200. Now I don't wish to say that the Eee PC is something Apple should have produced, but in almost every respect it is in the right direction. It's smaller in the correct sense (reducing the greater dimensions first), sturdier, cheaper. Asus have done a fantastic job of this, and I don't doubt that Apple could have done it even better. How about a 10-12" screen, make it thin if you really must, but make it cheap, and drop pretentions of selling people a widescreen video-editing 'supercomputer'?
With my cursory memory of the MBA's features, I can't think of a single argument other than a need to have the latest thing for the MBA over the top of the range Macbook, a notebook which I subjectively think looks more attractive, too.
What consumers would go for would be more portability, more affordability, at the expense of screen real estate and ultimate performance. What have given us is equal portability, a lot less affordability, and less performance.
I recently had the opportunity to borrow an Asus Eee PC, and was blown away by the advantages of its form factor. It was solidly built, confidence inspring, yet portable. The MBA makes me worry about potential flimsiness. How will it compared to a Macbook if bashed in the centre of the lid. The Eee PC, while slow and cramped, at least has rigidity
Moreover, do people really want to pay more for a compromised solution? Compare the Eee PC at �200. Now I don't wish to say that the Eee PC is something Apple should have produced, but in almost every respect it is in the right direction. It's smaller in the correct sense (reducing the greater dimensions first), sturdier, cheaper. Asus have done a fantastic job of this, and I don't doubt that Apple could have done it even better. How about a 10-12" screen, make it thin if you really must, but make it cheap, and drop pretentions of selling people a widescreen video-editing 'supercomputer'?
With my cursory memory of the MBA's features, I can't think of a single argument other than a need to have the latest thing for the MBA over the top of the range Macbook, a notebook which I subjectively think looks more attractive, too.
What consumers would go for would be more portability, more affordability, at the expense of screen real estate and ultimate performance. What have given us is equal portability, a lot less affordability, and less performance.
firewood
Mar 24, 09:33 PM
I had a Apple PowerMac 7100 with an external HD so I could dual boot into an Apple distribution of MkLinux, circa '96 to '99. I may still have the MkLinux CD somewhere.
And before that there was A/UX for some 680x0 desktop Macs, which was too expensive for me to try, IIRC.
And before that there was A/UX for some 680x0 desktop Macs, which was too expensive for me to try, IIRC.
Illusion986
Apr 15, 03:14 PM
Real or Not....I like it
VicMacs
Apr 16, 07:50 AM
I had seen these before, wasnt this from a guy who made his own metal iphone? it looks cheap
sarper
Apr 26, 07:34 AM
Before posting it's always a good idea to read the article and a little bit of the thread, not just the headline. Had you done any research, something I expect of developers, you would know that the general consensus is that it will be a larger screen with the same resolution. Also, Apple is giving you quite an amazing product and App Store to sling your wares instead of complaining you should maybe just put a little more effort into your applications and thank Apple for the opportunity they're giving you and others.
How come people still keep picking up on this point, it surprises me, especially from a developer. A larger screen doesn't necessarily mean problems for apps, a change in resolution does. That, coupled with the previous rumors of a bigger screen with the same resolution mean that if this is true, it doesn't make any difference to developers because there will be the same number of pixels in the screen. All it means is that everything will be very slightly bigger.
It's exactly like you say, if you assumed a certain resolution when coding your app, only a change in resolution affects you. Screen size means nothing, it's all about the pixels. 960x640 is the same whether it is on a 3.5" screen or a 4" screen for a developer.
Oh please don't be so smart. What you say means to lose the pixel density of Retina Display. Would you want that?
How come people still keep picking up on this point, it surprises me, especially from a developer. A larger screen doesn't necessarily mean problems for apps, a change in resolution does. That, coupled with the previous rumors of a bigger screen with the same resolution mean that if this is true, it doesn't make any difference to developers because there will be the same number of pixels in the screen. All it means is that everything will be very slightly bigger.
It's exactly like you say, if you assumed a certain resolution when coding your app, only a change in resolution affects you. Screen size means nothing, it's all about the pixels. 960x640 is the same whether it is on a 3.5" screen or a 4" screen for a developer.
Oh please don't be so smart. What you say means to lose the pixel density of Retina Display. Would you want that?
stoid
Aug 9, 04:54 PM
Anyone with a "new" 23?
I ordered the 'new' 23 inch display within 30 minutes of the store being back online, and I just unpacked it. Having no frame of reference to compare to an 'old' 23 inch, I can say that it is ridiculously bright and clear, has no pink cast whatsoever, and from a first careful look over it, 0 dead pixels!
Hopefully no pink cast will develop (I've had it plugged in for about 10 minutes now.
I'm off to get one of those dead pixel checker programs...
I ordered the 'new' 23 inch display within 30 minutes of the store being back online, and I just unpacked it. Having no frame of reference to compare to an 'old' 23 inch, I can say that it is ridiculously bright and clear, has no pink cast whatsoever, and from a first careful look over it, 0 dead pixels!
Hopefully no pink cast will develop (I've had it plugged in for about 10 minutes now.
I'm off to get one of those dead pixel checker programs...
dalvin200
Sep 12, 07:40 AM
I might be getting confused here - but isn't the music store just a web thingy and not part of the software? i.e. store and media player distinct, though interlinked
yeah, but there is a link in your itunes software (client) which has "Music Store" - u know.. down the left side where your playlists are..
Wouldn't they need to change that to a generic "Store" or something..
yeah, but there is a link in your itunes software (client) which has "Music Store" - u know.. down the left side where your playlists are..
Wouldn't they need to change that to a generic "Store" or something..
Micjose
Apr 25, 01:43 PM
It doesn't look that bad. I would definitely buy it. :)
j-huskisson
Sep 12, 07:43 AM
I just opened iTunes and it ask me if I wanted to update...
Mine's telling me i have the current version (6.0.5)
Mine's telling me i have the current version (6.0.5)
css1323
May 2, 12:10 PM
I know I'm late in this thread.. but, the supposed battery life improvements, is that simply the result of iOS no longer tracking so much information? Or is it the result of real unrelated improvements?
theregoesmybus
Aug 7, 10:00 PM
I purchase an Apple 30" display 2 1/2 weeks ago for $2499. Before I think about calling Apple, anyone have any thoughts on whether they would issue a refund for the difference? Or suggestions on how to ask?
Thanks, Andy
Thanks, Andy
Macnoviz
Oct 11, 10:50 AM
A bigger screen than the iPod's would be preferable, even without an increase in pixel count. A 320x240 video on my iMac display is far easier on the eyes than a 320x240 video on my iPod when both are set to the same brightness. Why? Because the iPod display is too damn small for long-term comfortable viewing.
Yep, I fear that the Zune may let the iPod screen look small. Now is Apple's turn to make people think the Zune has a small screen in comparison to the vPod
Yep, I fear that the Zune may let the iPod screen look small. Now is Apple's turn to make people think the Zune has a small screen in comparison to the vPod
flopticalcube
Apr 15, 07:35 PM
What's CST? I honestly have no idea. Actually, the entire sentence is confusing, could you clarify?
California Standards Test also known as STAR.
California Standards Test also known as STAR.
docgraham
Jan 5, 08:58 PM
I've been wanting to do this for a few years now. Thanks! ! !
Anthony T
Apr 16, 08:52 AM
I don't see how the writing on the iPhone is crooked or whatever, maybe I'm blind. The photo looks real. But I hope it's not, and if it is real, I hope that's just a prototype, because I don't like the square shape and the angular edges on the back.
Maccus Aurelius
Nov 16, 12:44 PM
this is totally bull. Apple is in no position to stab Intel in their back at this time. Plus, Intel is being very reliable delivering on schedule the chips Apple needs. Maybe in few years if their relationship deteriorate I might consider seeing Apple moving into AMD. But it is not happening anytime soon.
I don't see any deterioration of Intel/Apple relations anytime soon, since the xeon and C2D chips are way better than anything on AMD's lineup. Plus, I doubt apple will bother making an obscure laptop model just to have AMD in its stable. It probably wont be pro status, and the fact that there are 3 different macbooks in the consumer level line makes the addition of another simply superfluous nonsense.
I don't see any deterioration of Intel/Apple relations anytime soon, since the xeon and C2D chips are way better than anything on AMD's lineup. Plus, I doubt apple will bother making an obscure laptop model just to have AMD in its stable. It probably wont be pro status, and the fact that there are 3 different macbooks in the consumer level line makes the addition of another simply superfluous nonsense.
superfula
Apr 29, 04:34 PM
System Preferences sorted alphabetically has been around for awhile now. If I recall correctly, I think I even remember it in Tiger. Not sure about anything before that.
They are currently sorted into the four categories first, and then alphabetically in those categories. It seems Lion is throwing everything together and doing away with categories
They are currently sorted into the four categories first, and then alphabetically in those categories. It seems Lion is throwing everything together and doing away with categories
ariel
Sep 25, 11:46 AM
...well...I've been using Aperture 1.1 with 765k+ images on a 24" 800mhz G3 and it really rocks!...
I'm assuming you slipped and meant to type 20"...right?
Geez... musta been having a wet dream when i typed that LOL
Yes it is 20" and i use every bit of it heehee
I'm assuming you slipped and meant to type 20"...right?
Geez... musta been having a wet dream when i typed that LOL
Yes it is 20" and i use every bit of it heehee
jowie
Apr 25, 12:08 PM
I actually really dislike the borderless look. I hope they don't do this. A larger screen is one thing I really don't need. If I want a big screen, I'll get an iPad.