SactoGuy18
Apr 14, 06:47 AM
In the end, the iPhone 5 will probably be like this:
1. Will look like a "thicker" 4G iPod touch.
2. Display is now 4" IPS LCD touchscreen that goes almost all the way the edge of the device on the left and right side when you hold it vertically.
3. The back will now be grey color, mostly because the back is now a Liquidmetal metal back. We can rule out carbon fiber back due to normally high production costs for carbon fiber parts.
4. Will have completely redesigned antenna designed so you don't get signal loss regardless of how you hold the device.
5. Will use Apple A5 dual-core CPU/GPU.
6. Will use 512 MB system RAM (unless Apple can squeeze out another 256 MB of RAM internally).
7. Storage capacities will be 16, 32 and now 64 GB of flash memory.
8. Will use new Qualcomm or Broadcom cellphone chipset that supports GSM, CDMA and LTE so the iPhone 5 becomes a "universal" cellphone.
9. Will incorporate the latest Bluetooth 4.0 standard connectivity.
10. Will incorporate near-field communications connectivity that is at least compatible with the Sony-developed FeliCa standard (very necessary for use in Hong Kong, Japan and South Korea).
1. Will look like a "thicker" 4G iPod touch.
2. Display is now 4" IPS LCD touchscreen that goes almost all the way the edge of the device on the left and right side when you hold it vertically.
3. The back will now be grey color, mostly because the back is now a Liquidmetal metal back. We can rule out carbon fiber back due to normally high production costs for carbon fiber parts.
4. Will have completely redesigned antenna designed so you don't get signal loss regardless of how you hold the device.
5. Will use Apple A5 dual-core CPU/GPU.
6. Will use 512 MB system RAM (unless Apple can squeeze out another 256 MB of RAM internally).
7. Storage capacities will be 16, 32 and now 64 GB of flash memory.
8. Will use new Qualcomm or Broadcom cellphone chipset that supports GSM, CDMA and LTE so the iPhone 5 becomes a "universal" cellphone.
9. Will incorporate the latest Bluetooth 4.0 standard connectivity.
10. Will incorporate near-field communications connectivity that is at least compatible with the Sony-developed FeliCa standard (very necessary for use in Hong Kong, Japan and South Korea).
argopelter
Jun 8, 04:57 PM
If I leave $1,000 in cash on the street in front of my house, should I blame the government for not helping me when that money gets taken?
Well, if you leave it on the street, that's equivalent to discarding it. That's not an analogous situation here. Leaving it on your porch, which is still private property, would be more analogous. Getting your car stolen because you left it in a bad neighborhood would be still more analogous. In the car scenario, where you have a piece of property that's extremely traceable, then of course the police should (and would) help you recover it.
The "misclick to buy an app" scenario is even easier and simpler, and it's much less irresponsible than any of these other hypotheticals. I'd guess that 90% or more of iPhone users have a credit card linked to their iTunes account. You believe that there is an unlimited ceiling on how much money someone should lose as a result of linking a credit card to their account. If there were an app that cost a million dollars, and someone misclicked and bought it, you apparently believe it's right and good that they spend the rest of their life paying it off. I'm glad that Apple disagrees with you.
The notion that people shouldn't link their accounts to iTunes or shouldn't authorize large purchases (incidentally, if they followed your $1000 rule, they'd be out of luck if the app cost $900 rather than $1000, yes?) because Apple should just tell them to f off if they misclick like this...why? What's the benefit? How hard is it to give a refund? If it's really important, have them come to an Apple store and show that they didn't install the app.
Had you or someone else made the case that this was a mistake, just maybe a $20 mistake or even a $50 mistake rather than a $1000 mistake, then I'd say that's reasonable enough. I am not saying that people should take no personal responsibility for these sorts of mistakes. But $1000 is just crazy when these mistakes are as simple as a couple of clicks.
A
A
Well, if you leave it on the street, that's equivalent to discarding it. That's not an analogous situation here. Leaving it on your porch, which is still private property, would be more analogous. Getting your car stolen because you left it in a bad neighborhood would be still more analogous. In the car scenario, where you have a piece of property that's extremely traceable, then of course the police should (and would) help you recover it.
The "misclick to buy an app" scenario is even easier and simpler, and it's much less irresponsible than any of these other hypotheticals. I'd guess that 90% or more of iPhone users have a credit card linked to their iTunes account. You believe that there is an unlimited ceiling on how much money someone should lose as a result of linking a credit card to their account. If there were an app that cost a million dollars, and someone misclicked and bought it, you apparently believe it's right and good that they spend the rest of their life paying it off. I'm glad that Apple disagrees with you.
The notion that people shouldn't link their accounts to iTunes or shouldn't authorize large purchases (incidentally, if they followed your $1000 rule, they'd be out of luck if the app cost $900 rather than $1000, yes?) because Apple should just tell them to f off if they misclick like this...why? What's the benefit? How hard is it to give a refund? If it's really important, have them come to an Apple store and show that they didn't install the app.
Had you or someone else made the case that this was a mistake, just maybe a $20 mistake or even a $50 mistake rather than a $1000 mistake, then I'd say that's reasonable enough. I am not saying that people should take no personal responsibility for these sorts of mistakes. But $1000 is just crazy when these mistakes are as simple as a couple of clicks.
A
A
Mischka07
Oct 1, 03:35 PM
wow... that is such ****! pardon my french but that is rediculous... they gonna discount the bill by a 30%? they ought to. totally unacceptable.
I got verizon, and I RARELY get dropped calls nowadays, the service got better over the years... im not gonna lie and say it never happens, but i dont remember the last time i had one.
to be fair with AT&T i gotta ask, are those calls only 30 seconds long or 30 minutes long and then gets dropped? 30 second dropped call would piss me off compared to a 30 minute one. if it drops at 30 minutes AT&T is doing ya a favor not accidently running up the minutes hahah
I've had AT&T and the iPhone for a week now. I've experienced about 4 dropped calls thus far, 3 of them were in downtown San Francisco. My calls rarely last over 5 minutes, but 2 of the dropped calls happened as I was dialing out. 1 dropped call was after 4 minutes on the phone, and I can't remember when the last dropped call happened.
That said, I've probably made and received a total of 150 calls in the past week, so a 3% dropped call ratio isn't too terrible.
I got verizon, and I RARELY get dropped calls nowadays, the service got better over the years... im not gonna lie and say it never happens, but i dont remember the last time i had one.
to be fair with AT&T i gotta ask, are those calls only 30 seconds long or 30 minutes long and then gets dropped? 30 second dropped call would piss me off compared to a 30 minute one. if it drops at 30 minutes AT&T is doing ya a favor not accidently running up the minutes hahah
I've had AT&T and the iPhone for a week now. I've experienced about 4 dropped calls thus far, 3 of them were in downtown San Francisco. My calls rarely last over 5 minutes, but 2 of the dropped calls happened as I was dialing out. 1 dropped call was after 4 minutes on the phone, and I can't remember when the last dropped call happened.
That said, I've probably made and received a total of 150 calls in the past week, so a 3% dropped call ratio isn't too terrible.
Truffy
Mar 31, 11:07 AM
The new look gives the appearance of a physical desktop calendar with leather binding along the top edge, and like the iPad application shows remnants of torn-off pages for additional realism.
Oh, for the love of the children, NO! What's this need to make a computer application look like it's made of anything other than what it is? It's not made of paper and leather, why try to make it look like it is? I really don't get it...tacky, tacky, tacky. :mad:
Oh, for the love of the children, NO! What's this need to make a computer application look like it's made of anything other than what it is? It's not made of paper and leather, why try to make it look like it is? I really don't get it...tacky, tacky, tacky. :mad:
more...
Surely
Mar 1, 12:42 PM
Emilio? Isn't he still at home waiting for a script for Breakfast Club 2?
I thought he was the head coach of The Anaheim Ducks......
I thought he was the head coach of The Anaheim Ducks......
Heavy Fluid
Nov 30, 03:51 PM
http://www.brucesspeed.com/images/products/detail/Go_Pro_Digital_Motorsports_Hero_Wide_Angle.jpg
I got the HD Naked, a helmet mount and the handlebar mount for my birthday. It really is a nice piece of equipment. Video quality is very nice.
I got the HD Naked, a helmet mount and the handlebar mount for my birthday. It really is a nice piece of equipment. Video quality is very nice.
more...
MagnusVonMagnum
Nov 20, 10:40 AM
If you don't address those very good reasons, your argument won't be very convincing. We do not want the CPU suck, the identity leaking, the UI inconsistencies, and the very real risk of "zero day" Adobe bugs.
Whom am I trying to convince? Illogical and irrational people who worship Steve Jobs and hate what he hates? Such people will not care or listen to any form of reason. That's why the word fanatic is in fanboy. No, I talk about an option to turn Flash on or off at will and you find it offensive to even offer an option. That is irrational at best.
Everything you fear would be avoided if someone just turned Flash OFF (or it could default to off and have to be turned on). I've said since the first post the word OPTION. You don't seem to comprehend that word or understand why those of us that would want the choice of having Flash are not asking you to give up anything in the process. You could always turn it off if it were present. We cannot turn it on if it's not present.
In other words, you are not competent to carry on a rational discussion. You're just here to vent.
No, I just don't see any point in trying to carry on a logical, rational discussion with someone whose "argument" is based purely on emotion. If it weren't, you wouldn't object to an option for those of us that don't agree with Steve Jobs point of view because an option satisfies all your arguments against having Flash because you can always just leave it OFF. It cannot do harm if it's off no matter how paranoid you may become about having it on your device.
Many millions of people have Flash installed on their Macs (let alone those using Windows and Linux) and they could remove it. They know that if they do, some web sites will cease to function properly and thus they leave it on. The security concerns you mentioned will be addressed as all security bugs are in both OSX and Windows.
Users of those 120M+ devices don't have to hope. They are already free of Flash!
Free of Flash? You say that in a tone that sounds like they're free of slavery or something. No, what they're free of is the ability to access millions of web sites that require Flash to view them or much of their content and I do not see that as a good thing. But my point of view doesn't require you to see it. I said from the first post I wanted an option to use Flash. You could still choose to turn it off if it were there. I cannot turn on what is not present nor should I have to buy some absurd 3rd party converter that requires their web site to be running to use it.
The analogy makes no sense. Nobody is forcing you to use any Apple product.
And so that makes it OK for him to behave as he does? A lot of us like Apple products, but we would like them a lot better if Steve would just stick to making the products unfettered instead of trying to force his opinions and world view on people in the process. He doesn't like Flash so he decides for everyone they should not use Flash. What if Steve decided iOS shall no longer support MP3 files, only AAC? I suppose you would accept that as OK too? Update iOS and your MP3s no longer function. Yes, that would be just wonderful if they did that. After all, AAC is superior to MP3, so why should Apple support a legacy inferior heavily pirated format? By your logic, they should not.
If you really want the "full web experience" of zero-day Adobe bugs, get an Android phone. Note: Android phones were vulnerable to the last zero-day Adobe bug. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt)
I don't want a phone period guy. I only want and use an iPod Touch. Is there an Android iPod Touch? Android didn't exist when Apple made the claims of accessing the full Internet either and it doesn't make that any less a lie.
The fact that I can't catch zero-day Adobe attacks on my iPhone is a great reason to praise Apple's decision.
You act as if Apple has no vulnerabilities to attack. That is extremely naive to the point of emotionalism once again. In fact it's just the opposite. Apple's security is rated as bad compared to Windows and only the fact that there are so few Mac users compared to Windows has saved it thus far. As the popularity of iOS devices has exploded, it's inevitable that it will start attracting malware. It's only a matter of time. Will you wish you never bought an iPhone on that day or will you recognize that companies simply have to find and patch vulnerabilities. Apple has patched numerous security flaws in OSX over the years. Should we plug our ears and say there is no such thing?
Do tell: what exact sites are you talking about? What exact legacy flash applications are running on those sites to which you can find no substitute?
A quick search (you do know how to do that don't you?) reveals offhand a few example sites that don't use HTML5 video (which could and may in the future, but that doesn't help someone today):
Gametrailers
GiantBomb
Vimeo
Playstation Blog
Stiq of Joy
Engadget
Try some of these effects on this site this with HTML5:
http://superior-web-solutions.com/
Maybe read this article on Flash. Most HTML5 is just a video player. Flash isn't just a video player and it didn't even start as one.
http://www.andrewgreig.com/2010/06/html5-is-not-a-flash-replacement-and-shouldnt-be-seen-that-way/
Perhaps you want an open standard? So when does Apple stop requiring Quicktime on their web sites? :rolleyes:
Nobody is holding a gun to your head. Nobody is holding you hostage.
If you don't like the choices that Apple made, then ditch your iOS device and get an Android. Simple.
No, they're just boring me to death with emotional arguments why everyone should either worship Steve Jobs or leave the platform and get an Android instead similar to the "love OSX or leave it" arguments the fanboys regularly produce.
This is the first little lie in your rant. The iOS users don't find it inconvenient. If Flash were so damn important to them, they would have bought some device that could run Flash.
The fact that you think my statement is a "lie" based on a subjective opinion tells me you cannot even tell fact from fiction let alone lies from opinions. Trying to see someone else's point of view is completely foreign to you. You view the world through tinted lenses. What you say is akin to if you don't like something about OSX, go buy a Windows machine, as if there aren't any compromises along the way on that platform either (not to mention having to replace possibly thousands and thousands of dollars worth of software for a given platform to do so). Not liking something about a given platform and wanting to change it doesn't mean another platform is more viable in ALL areas or that a person may wish to spend a lot of money to make that change just because of that one issue. Perhaps you'd like to send me a free Android phone to replace my aging 1st Gen iPod Touch that I bought before Android even existed? I'd happily consider such an offer. Of course I'll need replacement apps as well.
The people who bought those 120M+ devices disagree with you.
You seem to forge that I and others that actually want Flash are part of those people dude. Get over yourself. Just because you don't like Flash doesn't mean the rest of us have hatred for it. Some of us simply don't like our iPhones, iPads and iPod Touches crippled for no reason. Besides, how you try to turn my initial argument that I'd prefer to see an option to use Flash for those of us that want it rather than no option into this flipping crusade against all things Apple and Flash alike is beyond me. You are making mountains out of mole hills and lies out of opinions. For what? I can't make you see things the way I see them. I never wanted to try. That's why I said OPTION. But you would deny everyone who wants that option to have it just like Steve Jobs. Steve does it because he's a control freak (he was once ousted from Apple for this very reason). I imagine you do it because you love Apple. Sadly, I actually prefer Steve's reason.
This is the second little lie. Apple did provide a choice: they approved the SkyFire App. They didn't have to do that.
Didn't they? It doesn't violate their rules for an app so how could they not approve it without being outright liars? Oh wait. They have done that before so I can see your point. ;)
Apple has also announced they will approve Flash Apps using Adobe's cross-compiler for iOS. If there actually are crucial Flash apps -- you haven't named a single specific one so far -- the owners of those apps should be able to easily cross-compile their apps for the iOS App Store.
Apple formerly announced they would NOT support it. Why did they change their minds? Could it have something to do with the Justice Department starting an investigation into anti-trust behaviors by Apple policies? Noooo....it couldn't be that. Apple is allowed to single out companies it doesn't like and compete with to just willy-nilly throw specifically into their license agreements.
And that is the third little lie. Flash is a proprietary and legacy platform. It's on the way down now.
I say if you don't have Flash you don't have the full Internet and you call that a "lie" based on the above quote? What freaking UNIVERSE do you live in??????? ROTFLMAO. You cannot tell a statement of fact from an idea in your head that somehow says that the "full internet" doesn't include sites that use "propriety" formats. Come on man. That position not only ignore reality it even invalidiates Apple's own web site as being part of the "full Internet" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You need to try harder. Calling someone a liar when they are obviously stating facts and/or opinions just makes you look immature.
because accusing someone of lying when it's obvious
Even Adobe has acknowledged that a Flash-only choice is a bankrupt strategy (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999). After websites start offering their content with an open standard, you've gotta ask: what exactly is the value in continuing to prop up Flash?
First of all, you are the one that is calling it a "bankrupt strategy". I see nothing in that thread by Adobe that even addresses the matter. Adobe is simply trying to sell products and if they can easily sell more products to Apple users by providing an easy way to convert their hard work Flash sites into HTML5, they are going to do so and laugh all the way to the bank. That in NO WAY invalidates the fact that there are still plenty of Flash only sites out there and plenty of flash uses (e.g. Flash games) that HTML5 is no simple substitute for regardless. Until the Internet is Flash free, there is going to be a need and a will by people to have the option to view Flash.
The mere fact that this Skyfire app has raked in over $1 MILLION in sales already shows just how big that will is. Yet you reject the desire to be able to use Flash web sites as meaningless and unnecessary while the thread title alone proves you wrong.
eight on quot;American Idol.
more...
Paul McDonald – Folsom Prison
Paul McDonald Tracks Of My
more...
Post image for Paul McDonald
Paul McDonald. Age: 25
more...
Paul McDonald Maggie
Paul McDonald couldn#39;t have
more...
American Idol Top 24: Paul
Paul Mc Donald was eliminated
more...
American Idol contestant, Paul
American Idol#39;s Paul McDonald
Watch Paul McDonald sing “Old
Whom am I trying to convince? Illogical and irrational people who worship Steve Jobs and hate what he hates? Such people will not care or listen to any form of reason. That's why the word fanatic is in fanboy. No, I talk about an option to turn Flash on or off at will and you find it offensive to even offer an option. That is irrational at best.
Everything you fear would be avoided if someone just turned Flash OFF (or it could default to off and have to be turned on). I've said since the first post the word OPTION. You don't seem to comprehend that word or understand why those of us that would want the choice of having Flash are not asking you to give up anything in the process. You could always turn it off if it were present. We cannot turn it on if it's not present.
In other words, you are not competent to carry on a rational discussion. You're just here to vent.
No, I just don't see any point in trying to carry on a logical, rational discussion with someone whose "argument" is based purely on emotion. If it weren't, you wouldn't object to an option for those of us that don't agree with Steve Jobs point of view because an option satisfies all your arguments against having Flash because you can always just leave it OFF. It cannot do harm if it's off no matter how paranoid you may become about having it on your device.
Many millions of people have Flash installed on their Macs (let alone those using Windows and Linux) and they could remove it. They know that if they do, some web sites will cease to function properly and thus they leave it on. The security concerns you mentioned will be addressed as all security bugs are in both OSX and Windows.
Users of those 120M+ devices don't have to hope. They are already free of Flash!
Free of Flash? You say that in a tone that sounds like they're free of slavery or something. No, what they're free of is the ability to access millions of web sites that require Flash to view them or much of their content and I do not see that as a good thing. But my point of view doesn't require you to see it. I said from the first post I wanted an option to use Flash. You could still choose to turn it off if it were there. I cannot turn on what is not present nor should I have to buy some absurd 3rd party converter that requires their web site to be running to use it.
The analogy makes no sense. Nobody is forcing you to use any Apple product.
And so that makes it OK for him to behave as he does? A lot of us like Apple products, but we would like them a lot better if Steve would just stick to making the products unfettered instead of trying to force his opinions and world view on people in the process. He doesn't like Flash so he decides for everyone they should not use Flash. What if Steve decided iOS shall no longer support MP3 files, only AAC? I suppose you would accept that as OK too? Update iOS and your MP3s no longer function. Yes, that would be just wonderful if they did that. After all, AAC is superior to MP3, so why should Apple support a legacy inferior heavily pirated format? By your logic, they should not.
If you really want the "full web experience" of zero-day Adobe bugs, get an Android phone. Note: Android phones were vulnerable to the last zero-day Adobe bug. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt)
I don't want a phone period guy. I only want and use an iPod Touch. Is there an Android iPod Touch? Android didn't exist when Apple made the claims of accessing the full Internet either and it doesn't make that any less a lie.
The fact that I can't catch zero-day Adobe attacks on my iPhone is a great reason to praise Apple's decision.
You act as if Apple has no vulnerabilities to attack. That is extremely naive to the point of emotionalism once again. In fact it's just the opposite. Apple's security is rated as bad compared to Windows and only the fact that there are so few Mac users compared to Windows has saved it thus far. As the popularity of iOS devices has exploded, it's inevitable that it will start attracting malware. It's only a matter of time. Will you wish you never bought an iPhone on that day or will you recognize that companies simply have to find and patch vulnerabilities. Apple has patched numerous security flaws in OSX over the years. Should we plug our ears and say there is no such thing?
Do tell: what exact sites are you talking about? What exact legacy flash applications are running on those sites to which you can find no substitute?
A quick search (you do know how to do that don't you?) reveals offhand a few example sites that don't use HTML5 video (which could and may in the future, but that doesn't help someone today):
Gametrailers
GiantBomb
Vimeo
Playstation Blog
Stiq of Joy
Engadget
Try some of these effects on this site this with HTML5:
http://superior-web-solutions.com/
Maybe read this article on Flash. Most HTML5 is just a video player. Flash isn't just a video player and it didn't even start as one.
http://www.andrewgreig.com/2010/06/html5-is-not-a-flash-replacement-and-shouldnt-be-seen-that-way/
Perhaps you want an open standard? So when does Apple stop requiring Quicktime on their web sites? :rolleyes:
Nobody is holding a gun to your head. Nobody is holding you hostage.
If you don't like the choices that Apple made, then ditch your iOS device and get an Android. Simple.
No, they're just boring me to death with emotional arguments why everyone should either worship Steve Jobs or leave the platform and get an Android instead similar to the "love OSX or leave it" arguments the fanboys regularly produce.
This is the first little lie in your rant. The iOS users don't find it inconvenient. If Flash were so damn important to them, they would have bought some device that could run Flash.
The fact that you think my statement is a "lie" based on a subjective opinion tells me you cannot even tell fact from fiction let alone lies from opinions. Trying to see someone else's point of view is completely foreign to you. You view the world through tinted lenses. What you say is akin to if you don't like something about OSX, go buy a Windows machine, as if there aren't any compromises along the way on that platform either (not to mention having to replace possibly thousands and thousands of dollars worth of software for a given platform to do so). Not liking something about a given platform and wanting to change it doesn't mean another platform is more viable in ALL areas or that a person may wish to spend a lot of money to make that change just because of that one issue. Perhaps you'd like to send me a free Android phone to replace my aging 1st Gen iPod Touch that I bought before Android even existed? I'd happily consider such an offer. Of course I'll need replacement apps as well.
The people who bought those 120M+ devices disagree with you.
You seem to forge that I and others that actually want Flash are part of those people dude. Get over yourself. Just because you don't like Flash doesn't mean the rest of us have hatred for it. Some of us simply don't like our iPhones, iPads and iPod Touches crippled for no reason. Besides, how you try to turn my initial argument that I'd prefer to see an option to use Flash for those of us that want it rather than no option into this flipping crusade against all things Apple and Flash alike is beyond me. You are making mountains out of mole hills and lies out of opinions. For what? I can't make you see things the way I see them. I never wanted to try. That's why I said OPTION. But you would deny everyone who wants that option to have it just like Steve Jobs. Steve does it because he's a control freak (he was once ousted from Apple for this very reason). I imagine you do it because you love Apple. Sadly, I actually prefer Steve's reason.
This is the second little lie. Apple did provide a choice: they approved the SkyFire App. They didn't have to do that.
Didn't they? It doesn't violate their rules for an app so how could they not approve it without being outright liars? Oh wait. They have done that before so I can see your point. ;)
Apple has also announced they will approve Flash Apps using Adobe's cross-compiler for iOS. If there actually are crucial Flash apps -- you haven't named a single specific one so far -- the owners of those apps should be able to easily cross-compile their apps for the iOS App Store.
Apple formerly announced they would NOT support it. Why did they change their minds? Could it have something to do with the Justice Department starting an investigation into anti-trust behaviors by Apple policies? Noooo....it couldn't be that. Apple is allowed to single out companies it doesn't like and compete with to just willy-nilly throw specifically into their license agreements.
And that is the third little lie. Flash is a proprietary and legacy platform. It's on the way down now.
I say if you don't have Flash you don't have the full Internet and you call that a "lie" based on the above quote? What freaking UNIVERSE do you live in??????? ROTFLMAO. You cannot tell a statement of fact from an idea in your head that somehow says that the "full internet" doesn't include sites that use "propriety" formats. Come on man. That position not only ignore reality it even invalidiates Apple's own web site as being part of the "full Internet" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You need to try harder. Calling someone a liar when they are obviously stating facts and/or opinions just makes you look immature.
because accusing someone of lying when it's obvious
Even Adobe has acknowledged that a Flash-only choice is a bankrupt strategy (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999). After websites start offering their content with an open standard, you've gotta ask: what exactly is the value in continuing to prop up Flash?
First of all, you are the one that is calling it a "bankrupt strategy". I see nothing in that thread by Adobe that even addresses the matter. Adobe is simply trying to sell products and if they can easily sell more products to Apple users by providing an easy way to convert their hard work Flash sites into HTML5, they are going to do so and laugh all the way to the bank. That in NO WAY invalidates the fact that there are still plenty of Flash only sites out there and plenty of flash uses (e.g. Flash games) that HTML5 is no simple substitute for regardless. Until the Internet is Flash free, there is going to be a need and a will by people to have the option to view Flash.
The mere fact that this Skyfire app has raked in over $1 MILLION in sales already shows just how big that will is. Yet you reject the desire to be able to use Flash web sites as meaningless and unnecessary while the thread title alone proves you wrong.
YoNeX
Nov 3, 10:02 AM
This is what will get me switching to VMware vs Parallels, multicore support in virtualization!
more...
andys53
Apr 22, 10:38 AM
Have you used a 4.3" phone. They don't seem that much physically bigger but the screen size is awesome! Apple keeps getting squeezed with adding new technology because of the size limitations of the phone. Giving us a slightly bigger size with the advantage of a bigger screen size AND more components seems like an excellent tradeoff.
Yeah - I know if will never happen because SJ is compulsive obsessive with never making things bigger.
Tony
The current size is more than adequate for me, and I use reading glasses! The screen could possibly be increased I suppose if the black areas were somehow shrunk, but unless your hands are like shovels the phones already big enough.
Yeah - I know if will never happen because SJ is compulsive obsessive with never making things bigger.
Tony
The current size is more than adequate for me, and I use reading glasses! The screen could possibly be increased I suppose if the black areas were somehow shrunk, but unless your hands are like shovels the phones already big enough.
Legion93
May 1, 11:21 PM
They also mocked us saying we would never catch him. Well we caught him and we won't stop.
Yeah, after like ten years you did. You call that potential success?
Yeah, after like ten years you did. You call that potential success?
more...
angelneo
Jul 24, 09:33 PM
I think this will even allow apple to be more versatile in their UI design. Imagine if the ipod interface now is on LCD, with clickwheels, buttons controlled by programming logic internally. For the first time users or non-savvy users, apple can tweak the interface to be even much more simpler, for heavy users, they can customise their own interface. The interface can even react to the users action, guiding them to the right button if it detected that the users are having problems. None of these will be tied down to the hardware design, giving it more room to fit into any particular users' competency level.
hayesk
Jul 26, 03:52 PM
Although it still isn't perfect - if you listen to music in the dark (I often listen to music in bed), it's difficult to find the buttons without pressing the wrong one. The 1G iPod was better in this regard.
The 3G buttons illuminated. Although yes, in essence, I agree - you don't want the buttons lit up all the time, and you don't want to look at it.
The 3G buttons illuminated. Although yes, in essence, I agree - you don't want the buttons lit up all the time, and you don't want to look at it.
more...
QCassidy352
Dec 1, 02:09 PM
I for one, welcome our new Adware overloards.
You don't have a sign behind you that says "Hail Adware," do you? ;) :D
You don't have a sign behind you that says "Hail Adware," do you? ;) :D
bryanc
Oct 24, 09:19 AM
But I can't decide weather to go for the slower 200 GB drive, or the somewhat faster 160GB drive.
I know that you can never have too much disk space, but I'm wondering what the performance differential will be.
I'm currently running on a 7200 rpm 100 GB (with only 10 GB free), and either of the options in the new machines will be slower (but cooler and less battery hungry)... am I going to be unhappy with a 4200 rpm 200 GB drive? Does anyone know the cache size or any other specs for the 200 GB drive?
I know that you can never have too much disk space, but I'm wondering what the performance differential will be.
I'm currently running on a 7200 rpm 100 GB (with only 10 GB free), and either of the options in the new machines will be slower (but cooler and less battery hungry)... am I going to be unhappy with a 4200 rpm 200 GB drive? Does anyone know the cache size or any other specs for the 200 GB drive?
more...
vnle
Jan 26, 09:46 AM
$90 shipped for 2TB on newegg. Can't beat that. (link (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16822136471))
http://images17.newegg.com/is/image/newegg/22-136-471-TS?$S300W$
Thanks for the link! I was very very close to getting one on amazon yesterday but decided to hold off to find a better deal :o anddd .... this was it! :D
http://images17.newegg.com/is/image/newegg/22-136-471-TS?$S300W$
Thanks for the link! I was very very close to getting one on amazon yesterday but decided to hold off to find a better deal :o anddd .... this was it! :D
tristangage
Jan 26, 11:08 AM
Who cares who the thread starter is...... all that matters is that there is a thread for everyone to show off their consumerism.;)
+1. This is one of the only places where consumerism is celebrated, not frowned upon! :D
+1. This is one of the only places where consumerism is celebrated, not frowned upon! :D
more...
rsbagga
Apr 25, 12:26 PM
Alas, no word yet on a Mac Mini refresh. Already own a mac bluetooth keyboard, an lcd screen, and magic mouse in my office... (sigh)...:( Anyone know when we might expect one?
LethalWolfe
Apr 29, 03:03 PM
Apple pays 70% straight to the record companies, which would be $0.90. If Amazon pays the same, then they have $0.21 loss before they even start. Or Amazon gets different prices than Apple, which would need some explaining.
I wouldn't be surprised if it was a loss leader nor would I be surprised if different retailers had different costs associated with the products they sell. The local gas station, Wal-mart, and Costco typically don't pay the same price for the products they sell and I don't see why the online retail game would be any different.
Lethal
I wouldn't be surprised if it was a loss leader nor would I be surprised if different retailers had different costs associated with the products they sell. The local gas station, Wal-mart, and Costco typically don't pay the same price for the products they sell and I don't see why the online retail game would be any different.
Lethal
maclaptop
Apr 14, 04:50 PM
Anyone feel confident buying a white one given the problems they've had getting one made?
I wouldn't take the chance, it's upgrade price is going to be $399 :eek:
I wouldn't take the chance, it's upgrade price is going to be $399 :eek:
mrrory
Jul 28, 02:22 PM
Have you ever used Pandora.com? (It's pretty awesome)
Not until just now, it's rather amazing! Thanks for the tip!!
Not until just now, it's rather amazing! Thanks for the tip!!
macUser2007
Apr 22, 07:26 PM
3.7"?!
This makes the new iPhone similar to an entry-level Android.
Apple needs to bump this to 4" or 4.1".
This makes the new iPhone similar to an entry-level Android.
Apple needs to bump this to 4" or 4.1".
Psilocybin
Apr 17, 09:12 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)
I will definitely not be moving to any laptop with intel 3000 gpu ever. Sticking with my MBA
I will definitely not be moving to any laptop with intel 3000 gpu ever. Sticking with my MBA
*LTD*
Apr 21, 11:17 PM
The ITC staff just ruled against them, they lost the famous case against MS, they ended up paying Apple Corps, etc.
What have they actually WON?
Record-breaking quarters and the position as the trend-setter in consumer tech.
These legal skirmishes haven't and won't result in any major untoward changes to Apple products. We all know this already.
What have they actually WON?
Record-breaking quarters and the position as the trend-setter in consumer tech.
These legal skirmishes haven't and won't result in any major untoward changes to Apple products. We all know this already.
br0adband
Nov 8, 01:44 AM
I'm not a "normal PC/Mac user" so in my daily usage I do maybe 100x more than "Joe Blow, PC/Mac owner." I install software, test it, remove it, reinstall it. I beta test software, sometimes alpha software for many companies <hint, hint>. I'm so far removed from your average computer owner it's not even funny.
I put OSX through it's paces on a daily basis (yeah, that rhymes, I know it) and so when something crashes I don't directly attribute it to the operating system itself because I know from experience it can be most anything. When someone says "I got <xxx> problem, what can I do?" the first thing that crosses my mind is a mental checklist I've created over the 30+ years I've been doing this stuff, and it's a really long checklist covering software, hardware, and the most important part of all in the equation: humans.
I don't know what problems other people have, but for me, Windows isn't an issue. I could sit here and talk about it, but since it's a Mac forum that wouldn't be a good idea in many respects. The only time I've had a virus in decades was by using AV software - figure that one out. I don't use AV software presently, I don't use Firefox as most sheeple seem to do these days, I don't have issues with IE like most sheeple seem to do these days either.
I'm not trying to turn this into a you-know-what contest, suffice to say I don't do the casual websurfing/email/watch a movie stuff that most users - and yes that's a broad generalization, but when was the last time the guy walking out of an Apple Store with his son or daughter or whatever was planning to go home and rip DVDs and compile software? Hardly the typical activity of a typical user.
I use operating systems, pushing them to their limits and back, so when something breaks, I don't immediately blow off the software and say "IT SUCKS" like some people around here - and then have the nerve to say "But since it's the only game in town I use this software even though IT SUCKS and I won't pay for it ever so I keep using it illegally even though IT SUCKS" etc.
Just my $.02 and lot of change... but I think some people around here would do themselves a favor by either:
a) paying for it then complaining to the software maker to improve it
b) paying for it so your opinions actually mean something to those of that have and use it because we own it
c) shut up before you dig yourself a hole you'll never climb out of
That's just me, of course... I'm not alone, but I'm not the kind to sit idly by and let someone trounce a good product for no good reason.
bb
I put OSX through it's paces on a daily basis (yeah, that rhymes, I know it) and so when something crashes I don't directly attribute it to the operating system itself because I know from experience it can be most anything. When someone says "I got <xxx> problem, what can I do?" the first thing that crosses my mind is a mental checklist I've created over the 30+ years I've been doing this stuff, and it's a really long checklist covering software, hardware, and the most important part of all in the equation: humans.
I don't know what problems other people have, but for me, Windows isn't an issue. I could sit here and talk about it, but since it's a Mac forum that wouldn't be a good idea in many respects. The only time I've had a virus in decades was by using AV software - figure that one out. I don't use AV software presently, I don't use Firefox as most sheeple seem to do these days, I don't have issues with IE like most sheeple seem to do these days either.
I'm not trying to turn this into a you-know-what contest, suffice to say I don't do the casual websurfing/email/watch a movie stuff that most users - and yes that's a broad generalization, but when was the last time the guy walking out of an Apple Store with his son or daughter or whatever was planning to go home and rip DVDs and compile software? Hardly the typical activity of a typical user.
I use operating systems, pushing them to their limits and back, so when something breaks, I don't immediately blow off the software and say "IT SUCKS" like some people around here - and then have the nerve to say "But since it's the only game in town I use this software even though IT SUCKS and I won't pay for it ever so I keep using it illegally even though IT SUCKS" etc.
Just my $.02 and lot of change... but I think some people around here would do themselves a favor by either:
a) paying for it then complaining to the software maker to improve it
b) paying for it so your opinions actually mean something to those of that have and use it because we own it
c) shut up before you dig yourself a hole you'll never climb out of
That's just me, of course... I'm not alone, but I'm not the kind to sit idly by and let someone trounce a good product for no good reason.
bb