albeik
Sep 10, 11:20 PM
Wanted to add to this thread the "interesting" picture...
http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/2006/09/sept12pic.jpg
Source: http://www.tuaw.com/2006/09/10/banner-for-september-12th-event/
Looks fake.
Best comment: "Clearly, Apple has invented some hyperspace technology that lets you fit a DVD into an iPod"
http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/2006/09/sept12pic.jpg
Source: http://www.tuaw.com/2006/09/10/banner-for-september-12th-event/
Looks fake.
Best comment: "Clearly, Apple has invented some hyperspace technology that lets you fit a DVD into an iPod"
bigandy
Nov 22, 06:48 AM
That quote from Palm's CEO sounds like the mad ramblings of someone very worried their market share is about to plummet completely... :rolleyes:
ImNoSuperMan
Sep 11, 08:52 AM
.... no one is going to want to run upstairs to their Mac, go on itunes, click on the media store, select Scary movie #17 (more boobs than all the rest), click download. Then run downstairs to the Media cube, finger on button guessing when they can start to play. I therefore think that front row will gain an interface onto the ITMS so that media can be bought from the comfort of the sofa. This will kick off the actual download from upstairs computer and the front row interface will show when the user can start the movie.
That wud be a really nice feature IMO. BTW there is another simple solution for the Apple movie store to score over it`s rival. I posted my thoughts earlier in this thread but it seems that the post got buried and not a lot of people saw it. So I m quoting myself here. Please forgive me.:o
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.
That wud be a really nice feature IMO. BTW there is another simple solution for the Apple movie store to score over it`s rival. I posted my thoughts earlier in this thread but it seems that the post got buried and not a lot of people saw it. So I m quoting myself here. Please forgive me.:o
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.
dethmaShine
Apr 20, 01:53 AM
I don't see that happening. Apple tends to avoid complicated product lines. That is one too many options in my opinion.
How about the macbook pro or the iMac lineup?
What happened to choice?
I don't know if Apple would do it; but I;d like them to. :)
How about the macbook pro or the iMac lineup?
What happened to choice?
I don't know if Apple would do it; but I;d like them to. :)
Don't panic
May 3, 12:22 PM
In the meanwhile, the villain...
so is the turn of the villain simultaneous to the heroes (meaning he can communicate/implement his moves at any time) or do turns alternate (and if they do, do they in singles or in pairs)?
what's the point of having 'rounds'?
is there a time-limit to the villain's decision before it defaults in no-action, 1 point accrued?
(i know i am a pain, but i want the rules to be clear)
so is the turn of the villain simultaneous to the heroes (meaning he can communicate/implement his moves at any time) or do turns alternate (and if they do, do they in singles or in pairs)?
what's the point of having 'rounds'?
is there a time-limit to the villain's decision before it defaults in no-action, 1 point accrued?
(i know i am a pain, but i want the rules to be clear)
mdgm
Mar 30, 10:10 PM
No.
That's a shame. I'd like to get a 3rd party SSD but would prefer to wait till using TRIM with it is officially supported by Mac OS X.
That's a shame. I'd like to get a 3rd party SSD but would prefer to wait till using TRIM with it is officially supported by Mac OS X.
toddybody
Apr 5, 03:21 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
No, apple will stop at nothing to destroy the JB "community".
Ok Darth Vader. PS: What you let happen to Alderaan was jacked up.
No, apple will stop at nothing to destroy the JB "community".
Ok Darth Vader. PS: What you let happen to Alderaan was jacked up.
Multimedia
Aug 7, 07:22 PM
In the past, Apple has always issued a "White Paper" on new leading products. I can't see the link for that yet. Anyone find it? :confused:
macenforcer
Aug 7, 05:49 PM
Kinda ugly.
Somewhat. I definately will miss the cool clear shade on the G5. I would always run that computer with the aluminum cover off. Looked so nice. It would have been nice if they put XEON on the inside somewhere. Just too plain inside.
I would swear the mac pro is shorter though. Is it just me?
EDIT: No, its the same exact size. Just 2lbs lighter.
Somewhat. I definately will miss the cool clear shade on the G5. I would always run that computer with the aluminum cover off. Looked so nice. It would have been nice if they put XEON on the inside somewhere. Just too plain inside.
I would swear the mac pro is shorter though. Is it just me?
EDIT: No, its the same exact size. Just 2lbs lighter.
Stelph
Mar 30, 03:26 AM
Hammer, meet nail head. I'm an American, and unfortunately I must agree with iliketyla's assessment. There is this incredible sense of entitlement that has pervaded American culture. So many people want at least $20 per hour, but [insert deity or lack of one here] forbid they should lift more than two pounds.
Enter the illegal immigrants, who find the pay good enough to live on, not to mention the location, location, location. Hmm... $5 an hour harvesting lettuce heads for hours on end, or dodging drug-cartel bullets in Ciudad Juarez day and night. Not too tough a decision for me, and IMHO one worth the risk of getting caught by US border police.
Here in the UK a couple of months ago there was quite a good program on this, where a group of Brits who were unemployed and were very vocally against immigrants "coming over here and taking our jobs" were given the chance to work alongside them in the same job to see how they would do.
Turned out the vast majority of the Brits were very lazy and undermotivated, the work was sub-par and they gave the impression that they just felt that as they had been born in the UK they were entitled to a job rather than entitled to it because they worked hard. That being said, there were two guys who I had a lot of respect for as at the start of the program they were the same as the others, but then picked up an "anything that they can do, I can do better" mentality and totally committed themselves to the job, as it turned out they did very well and by the end they were offered jobs as they showed they were good workers
Enter the illegal immigrants, who find the pay good enough to live on, not to mention the location, location, location. Hmm... $5 an hour harvesting lettuce heads for hours on end, or dodging drug-cartel bullets in Ciudad Juarez day and night. Not too tough a decision for me, and IMHO one worth the risk of getting caught by US border police.
Here in the UK a couple of months ago there was quite a good program on this, where a group of Brits who were unemployed and were very vocally against immigrants "coming over here and taking our jobs" were given the chance to work alongside them in the same job to see how they would do.
Turned out the vast majority of the Brits were very lazy and undermotivated, the work was sub-par and they gave the impression that they just felt that as they had been born in the UK they were entitled to a job rather than entitled to it because they worked hard. That being said, there were two guys who I had a lot of respect for as at the start of the program they were the same as the others, but then picked up an "anything that they can do, I can do better" mentality and totally committed themselves to the job, as it turned out they did very well and by the end they were offered jobs as they showed they were good workers
bhtooefr
Apr 30, 10:56 PM
OK, so a few things about this that I'm seeing...
3200x2000 background: A bit odd choice of resolution, but I think they're making a 16:10 resolution that they'll crop to 16:9 for the machine with an actually 3200px wide display.
But, that does indicate a few things.
3200x1800 makes sense if you're pixel quadrupling a 1600x900 display, which is what a 15.6" 16:9 MBP at current pixel densities would be. But, it DOESN'T make sense for pixel quadrupling the 17" MBP, or any of the desktop displays.
If the 15.6" or 15.4" MBP gets this, and the 17" doesn't... that means that (and this is pure conjecture here) the 17" isn't long for the world. How well do they sell, anyway?
As for display technology supporting a pixel-quadrupled iMac, we've had the technology for a pixel-quadrupled 21.5" iMac since 2001. The IBM T221, a 3840x2400 22.2" monitor, is the same density as that theoretical display. It was $18,000 when it came out, and by the time IBM pulled the plug on IDTech, a Viewsonic-branded version of the T221, the VP2290b, was in the $4000 ballpark in 2005. So, had the T221 followed a curve influenced more by technology improvements than by the market getting saturated with unusable monitors, we'd be seeing these panels in the $2000 range nowadays, as a standalone monitor, I think.
Now, to look at all the machines that Apple has. Keep in mind that I think that only pro hardware will get this, and Apple likes to stick to around 100-110 PPI for desktops, and 110-130 PPI for laptops.
I'll go ahead and speculate on theoretical 16:9 variants of existing models, too.
MacBook Air 11.6": Currently 1366x768, 135 ppi, retina at 25.4" - would be 2732x1536, 270 ppi, retina at 12.7"
MacBook Air 13.3": Currently 1440x900, 128 ppi, retina at 26.9" - would be 2880x1800, 255 ppi, retina at 13.5"
MacBook and MacBook Pro 13.3": Currently 1280x800, 113 ppi, retina at 30.3" - would be 2560x1600, 227 ppi, retina at 15.1"
MacBook Pro 15.4" low-res: Currently 1440x900, 110 ppi, retina at 31.2" - would be 2880x1800, 221 ppi, retina at 15.6"
MacBook Pro 15.4" high-res: Currently 1680x1050, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3360x2100, 257 ppi, retina at 13.4"
MacBook Pro 17.0": Currently 1920x1200, 133 ppi, retina at 25.8" - would be 3840x2400, 266 ppi, retina at 12.9"
iMac 21.5": Currently 1920x1080, 102 ppi, retina at 33.6" - would be 3840x2160, 205 ppi, retina at 16.8"
iMac/Cinema Display 27": Currently 2560x1440, 109 ppi, retina at 31.6" - would be 5120x2880, 218 ppi, retina at 15.8"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 low-res: 1366x768, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 2732x1536, 236 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 high-res: 1600x900, 138 ppi, retina at 24.9" - would be 3200x1800, 276 ppi, retina at 12.4"
Theoretical 15.6" 16:9: 1600x900, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 3200x1800, 235 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 17.1" 16:9: 1920x1080, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3840x2160, 258 ppi, retina at 13.3"
Hrm. I am noticing a problem here for getting consistent resolutions when getting 16:9 into the mix... and, interestingly, Apple stayed on 16:10 for the 13.3" MBA. So, I wonder if this could even be a red herring of some kind? Because 3200x2000 doesn't really match up with any expected 16:10 resolution...
(Current lineup can do 255-270 ppi, which is fairly tight, ignoring the 13.3" MB(P) and the low-res 15.4" MBP, but going to 16:9, either desktop area would shrink for many users (and even then, the 11.6" and 17.1" wouldn't fit in well), or there would be a wide variance in ppi.)
Another thing to consider is the $3.9 billion that Apple pumped into LCD makers... possibly to secure a supply of retina panels?
(In case you can't tell, I'm SERIOUS about my high ppi displays. Looking at a IDTech IAQX10N, a 2048x1536 15.0" 171 ppi IPS display right now, and I'm stuck on a 5 year old machine because of it. Whoever makes something roughly equivalent or better gets my business, unless they're Sony.)
3200x2000 background: A bit odd choice of resolution, but I think they're making a 16:10 resolution that they'll crop to 16:9 for the machine with an actually 3200px wide display.
But, that does indicate a few things.
3200x1800 makes sense if you're pixel quadrupling a 1600x900 display, which is what a 15.6" 16:9 MBP at current pixel densities would be. But, it DOESN'T make sense for pixel quadrupling the 17" MBP, or any of the desktop displays.
If the 15.6" or 15.4" MBP gets this, and the 17" doesn't... that means that (and this is pure conjecture here) the 17" isn't long for the world. How well do they sell, anyway?
As for display technology supporting a pixel-quadrupled iMac, we've had the technology for a pixel-quadrupled 21.5" iMac since 2001. The IBM T221, a 3840x2400 22.2" monitor, is the same density as that theoretical display. It was $18,000 when it came out, and by the time IBM pulled the plug on IDTech, a Viewsonic-branded version of the T221, the VP2290b, was in the $4000 ballpark in 2005. So, had the T221 followed a curve influenced more by technology improvements than by the market getting saturated with unusable monitors, we'd be seeing these panels in the $2000 range nowadays, as a standalone monitor, I think.
Now, to look at all the machines that Apple has. Keep in mind that I think that only pro hardware will get this, and Apple likes to stick to around 100-110 PPI for desktops, and 110-130 PPI for laptops.
I'll go ahead and speculate on theoretical 16:9 variants of existing models, too.
MacBook Air 11.6": Currently 1366x768, 135 ppi, retina at 25.4" - would be 2732x1536, 270 ppi, retina at 12.7"
MacBook Air 13.3": Currently 1440x900, 128 ppi, retina at 26.9" - would be 2880x1800, 255 ppi, retina at 13.5"
MacBook and MacBook Pro 13.3": Currently 1280x800, 113 ppi, retina at 30.3" - would be 2560x1600, 227 ppi, retina at 15.1"
MacBook Pro 15.4" low-res: Currently 1440x900, 110 ppi, retina at 31.2" - would be 2880x1800, 221 ppi, retina at 15.6"
MacBook Pro 15.4" high-res: Currently 1680x1050, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3360x2100, 257 ppi, retina at 13.4"
MacBook Pro 17.0": Currently 1920x1200, 133 ppi, retina at 25.8" - would be 3840x2400, 266 ppi, retina at 12.9"
iMac 21.5": Currently 1920x1080, 102 ppi, retina at 33.6" - would be 3840x2160, 205 ppi, retina at 16.8"
iMac/Cinema Display 27": Currently 2560x1440, 109 ppi, retina at 31.6" - would be 5120x2880, 218 ppi, retina at 15.8"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 low-res: 1366x768, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 2732x1536, 236 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 high-res: 1600x900, 138 ppi, retina at 24.9" - would be 3200x1800, 276 ppi, retina at 12.4"
Theoretical 15.6" 16:9: 1600x900, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 3200x1800, 235 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 17.1" 16:9: 1920x1080, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3840x2160, 258 ppi, retina at 13.3"
Hrm. I am noticing a problem here for getting consistent resolutions when getting 16:9 into the mix... and, interestingly, Apple stayed on 16:10 for the 13.3" MBA. So, I wonder if this could even be a red herring of some kind? Because 3200x2000 doesn't really match up with any expected 16:10 resolution...
(Current lineup can do 255-270 ppi, which is fairly tight, ignoring the 13.3" MB(P) and the low-res 15.4" MBP, but going to 16:9, either desktop area would shrink for many users (and even then, the 11.6" and 17.1" wouldn't fit in well), or there would be a wide variance in ppi.)
Another thing to consider is the $3.9 billion that Apple pumped into LCD makers... possibly to secure a supply of retina panels?
(In case you can't tell, I'm SERIOUS about my high ppi displays. Looking at a IDTech IAQX10N, a 2048x1536 15.0" 171 ppi IPS display right now, and I'm stuck on a 5 year old machine because of it. Whoever makes something roughly equivalent or better gets my business, unless they're Sony.)
Erasmus
Aug 4, 07:38 PM
Looking closer, I can immediately see how they squeeze it into both of these computers...the trackpad isn't in the center of the laptop. How freaking messed up is that? They slid it over the to the left so that the optical drive could fit. That would bug the heck out of me.
And obviously the guy who decided to design it that way was a leftie...
It would be OK, if you could choose what side ou put the track pad and CD drive on. It would be OK if it was off centre to the right, as I'm right handed, but moving my right hand to the left side would no doubt feel wierd and awkward.
And obviously the guy who decided to design it that way was a leftie...
It would be OK, if you could choose what side ou put the track pad and CD drive on. It would be OK if it was off centre to the right, as I'm right handed, but moving my right hand to the left side would no doubt feel wierd and awkward.
QCassidy352
Aug 11, 12:33 PM
I've said all along the imac will get conroe. With woodcrest in the mac pro, I'd say it's pretty well guaranteed. The imac only got a laptop processor because it was the only choice. From here on out it'll get the desktop processor it deserves.
I also think the macbook will get merom sooner rather than later. The two lines will still be differentiated by size, screen res, casing, backlit keys, dedicated graphics, and express card slot. The macbook needs to compete against PC laptops, not the macbook pro. The processors will pretty similar on the G4 laptops before intel (1.33/1.42 for the ibook, 1.5/1.67 for the powerbook) and yet there were still plenty of compelling reasons to go for the powerbook. Same thing still applies.
I also think the macbook will get merom sooner rather than later. The two lines will still be differentiated by size, screen res, casing, backlit keys, dedicated graphics, and express card slot. The macbook needs to compete against PC laptops, not the macbook pro. The processors will pretty similar on the G4 laptops before intel (1.33/1.42 for the ibook, 1.5/1.67 for the powerbook) and yet there were still plenty of compelling reasons to go for the powerbook. Same thing still applies.
CKtoph
Nov 13, 11:05 AM
I'm going to use it for a few days and a couple trips around town first before I give a review. But my intial impressions of the kit is that it works just as advertised. Doesn't feel cheap, BT syncing is very easy and syncs every time I plug the phone in. Speaker volume is clear but may need to be louder. I still have to give it some time and adjust to my liking first (my car is pretty loud). And yes, I am using Navigon, but I have not yet downloaded their Live Traffice update.
Per the manual, calls will not come in through your car's speaker but instead the TomTom car kit's speaker.
I currently have the kit mounted on my windshield but I also tried mounting it on my dash. If you do not want to put that adhesive on your dash, buy a Sticky Pad (http://www.overstock.com/Electronics/Hand-Stands-Jelly-Sticky-Pad-Dash-Holder/2603163/product.html) and lay it on your dash. Now mount the TomTom kit as you normally would on the sticky pad as if it were glass. It sticks and works very well. Alternatively, you can put the adhesive disk on the sticky pad if you want the suction cup of the TomTom kit to cling to a hard plastic surface. When you leave your car, just peel the Sticky Pad off of your dash and it will not leave any residue. Essentially it is a GPS friction mount. Or you can buy this (http://www.overstock.com/Electronics/HandStands-GPS-Sticky-Pad-Dash-Mount/4341949/product.html), but its just too big for my tastes.
Thanks for the tip. How do you feel about the speaker volume on the unit for calls so far? Also, do the navigation instructions come through the car's speakers at all?
I'd still be curious to see how it looks when stuck to the windshield. I've heard some say that it's too hard to see on the windshield.
Per the manual, calls will not come in through your car's speaker but instead the TomTom car kit's speaker.
I currently have the kit mounted on my windshield but I also tried mounting it on my dash. If you do not want to put that adhesive on your dash, buy a Sticky Pad (http://www.overstock.com/Electronics/Hand-Stands-Jelly-Sticky-Pad-Dash-Holder/2603163/product.html) and lay it on your dash. Now mount the TomTom kit as you normally would on the sticky pad as if it were glass. It sticks and works very well. Alternatively, you can put the adhesive disk on the sticky pad if you want the suction cup of the TomTom kit to cling to a hard plastic surface. When you leave your car, just peel the Sticky Pad off of your dash and it will not leave any residue. Essentially it is a GPS friction mount. Or you can buy this (http://www.overstock.com/Electronics/HandStands-GPS-Sticky-Pad-Dash-Mount/4341949/product.html), but its just too big for my tastes.
Thanks for the tip. How do you feel about the speaker volume on the unit for calls so far? Also, do the navigation instructions come through the car's speakers at all?
I'd still be curious to see how it looks when stuck to the windshield. I've heard some say that it's too hard to see on the windshield.
Mac'nCheese
Apr 9, 09:46 PM
Yeah for common ground! Our relationship just hit an inception point and I think things are looking up. :)
Nothing wrong with a fun disagreement, though! Time to hit the hay, have a good night!
Nothing wrong with a fun disagreement, though! Time to hit the hay, have a good night!
citizenzen
Apr 14, 04:24 PM
We should also cut spending across the board. Cut spending on EVERYTHING.
Repeating myself ...
I find this approach highly irrational. If you're overweight, it's important to lose fat. It does no good whatsoever to treat brain the same as fat ... to treat vital organs the same as fat ... to treat limbs and digits the same as fat.
Repeating myself ...
I find this approach highly irrational. If you're overweight, it's important to lose fat. It does no good whatsoever to treat brain the same as fat ... to treat vital organs the same as fat ... to treat limbs and digits the same as fat.
Plutonius
May 4, 04:30 PM
I'm glad we finally started moving :).
We might as well keep moving forward through the door at the end of the hallway.
We might as well keep moving forward through the door at the end of the hallway.
henry72
May 4, 04:10 PM
I think Apple might update the firmware. It will appear a Mac App Store icon when user hold down the option key. Also it will allow user to put their Apple ID and choose a Wifi network. Isn't it a good idea? :D
I mean how many time you need to reinstall Mac OS lol
Mac App Store will be the fastest way to get what you want and this is the future. Disc is OVER!
I mean how many time you need to reinstall Mac OS lol
Mac App Store will be the fastest way to get what you want and this is the future. Disc is OVER!
RebootD
Mar 31, 12:26 AM
So what part of 'iOS' fluff do Versions, Air Drop, Mission Control, Auto Save and Lion Server fit under?
'Useful' UI improvements? So what would you consider useful? Personally full screen apps, a native application launcher that can be organized, and resume are all useful to me. Get out of the mindset that just because it originated from iOS means that it won't be useful.
Wasn't talking 'features' I was talking "user interface" as in getting rid of aqua, standardize their apps GUI etc.
As for 'features" Versions and Air drop are great but most of my apps already autosave or I do every 10 minutes, don't care about mission control, don't really care about full screen apps because I have many open at once side by side and I don't run a server.
'Useful' UI improvements? So what would you consider useful? Personally full screen apps, a native application launcher that can be organized, and resume are all useful to me. Get out of the mindset that just because it originated from iOS means that it won't be useful.
Wasn't talking 'features' I was talking "user interface" as in getting rid of aqua, standardize their apps GUI etc.
As for 'features" Versions and Air drop are great but most of my apps already autosave or I do every 10 minutes, don't care about mission control, don't really care about full screen apps because I have many open at once side by side and I don't run a server.
Core Trio
Jul 21, 02:04 PM
Noooo....must...resist urges to buy...new MBP's
Just have to keep reminding myself I cant afford these things right now..
Just have to keep reminding myself I cant afford these things right now..
bdkennedy1
Mar 28, 10:02 AM
So? Do any of those phones have 1/10th the user experience of the iPhone? Who is standing in line for them? Do you question the speed of the electronics in your TV set? No because it does what it's supposed to do.
Yes, precisely. Android and other handsets are moving to Tegra 2/Orion based platforms with maybe quad core SoCs coming in Fall '11 from nVidia. An A5 equipped iPhone shipping around September would be outdated the minute it hits the shelves as far as hardware is concerned.
With Pocket Legends already reporting that gaming on Android is making them more money than on iOS and this delay in Apple's usual release schedule, it could mean that iOS gaming could lose out to Android and set the pace for future developments, just like what happened to Apple in the 80s with the rise of the PC.
While I doubt we have anything to worry about short term as iOS device owners, if they keep this up in the long term and keep losing ground to Android, it might become a problem.
Yes, precisely. Android and other handsets are moving to Tegra 2/Orion based platforms with maybe quad core SoCs coming in Fall '11 from nVidia. An A5 equipped iPhone shipping around September would be outdated the minute it hits the shelves as far as hardware is concerned.
With Pocket Legends already reporting that gaming on Android is making them more money than on iOS and this delay in Apple's usual release schedule, it could mean that iOS gaming could lose out to Android and set the pace for future developments, just like what happened to Apple in the 80s with the rise of the PC.
While I doubt we have anything to worry about short term as iOS device owners, if they keep this up in the long term and keep losing ground to Android, it might become a problem.
erikh
Sep 15, 04:22 PM
So, how is MacShrine perceived in the rumor community? Do they have a sufficiently good track record for us to say, "this is it - the Merom MBP is finally coming", or is this likely to be just another rehash of all the Core2Duo MBP hype/frustration going around?
scottsjack
Apr 21, 04:03 PM
As an MP owner it of course sounds great to me. I really get sick hearing about iToys, some of which I own and love. If Apple would produce both the traditional Mac Pro and a rack mount version each configured to their specific duties that would be the best. As a mat screen user it's either Mac Pro, Mac mini or Windows for me. In spite of the fact that Windows 7 is pretty great to use I'd MUCH, MUCH rather stay with Mac.
rdowns
Apr 14, 12:01 PM
Admittedly, I didn't read the article posted by rdowns, but from reading the quotes he put in the OP, I'd have to say I disagree somewhat with your comments. Sure, we should all be working together, but the point is that those who are making the most are not paying at the same share/percentage as those who are lower or middle income.
Is it fair and in line with "everyone chipping in" if the person making $50,000 a year has to pay 20+% of their income, but the person making $1,000,000 a year only has to pay 16%?
Additionally, let's not forget that there is a lot of tension between "everyone chipping in" and the select few who make the decisions about how what has been "chipped in" gets spent. I have no problem doing my part to pay taxes as I do benefit from roads, schools, etc., but I do have a problem with a lot of the wasteful ways in which tax money is spent. We could all benefit from some efficiency, improved budgeting, and controlled spending on the government level.
I couldn't agree with you more. I think we ought to take the far lefties and the Tea Partyers and tell them to go into a room and hammer out a deal. Then the 60% of the sane people could have real negotiations.
Is it fair and in line with "everyone chipping in" if the person making $50,000 a year has to pay 20+% of their income, but the person making $1,000,000 a year only has to pay 16%?
Additionally, let's not forget that there is a lot of tension between "everyone chipping in" and the select few who make the decisions about how what has been "chipped in" gets spent. I have no problem doing my part to pay taxes as I do benefit from roads, schools, etc., but I do have a problem with a lot of the wasteful ways in which tax money is spent. We could all benefit from some efficiency, improved budgeting, and controlled spending on the government level.
I couldn't agree with you more. I think we ought to take the far lefties and the Tea Partyers and tell them to go into a room and hammer out a deal. Then the 60% of the sane people could have real negotiations.
