Bonte
Jul 30, 12:23 PM
But then the acronym would iPP :D
Or iPod iPhone - iPiP :)
www.iphone.org (http://www.iphone.org)
Or iPod iPhone - iPiP :)
www.iphone.org (http://www.iphone.org)
moot
Jul 29, 11:17 PM
I will now be picturing Steve Jobs answering that phone during his Keynote in my dreams. :)
I cannot see it happening. I am not saying it won't be released in August but it wont be at the WWDC.
For a start, the Worldwide Developers conference is not a suitable place to release an American-centric consumer product.
Secondly, this would be big news and would require its own dedicated news conference. It would be really hyped up to all the assembled press.
Not coming at WWDC.
oh, and I hope this thing makes it international when it does finally come.
I cannot see it happening. I am not saying it won't be released in August but it wont be at the WWDC.
For a start, the Worldwide Developers conference is not a suitable place to release an American-centric consumer product.
Secondly, this would be big news and would require its own dedicated news conference. It would be really hyped up to all the assembled press.
Not coming at WWDC.
oh, and I hope this thing makes it international when it does finally come.
Chupa Chupa
Mar 28, 09:54 AM
Makes sense if Apple wants 10.7 and iOS5 to be the focus. Also gives a little more life to the VZW iPhone 4 (fewer bitter customers, even if caused by their own impatience). Finally, while the fall is usually iPod update time, let's face it, iPod updates are getting kinda boring. A new iPhone 5 in Sept would def be more buzzworthy. Then Apple gets back to the summer iPhone releases w/ the iPhone (6) LTE.
balamw
Apr 10, 06:13 PM
Also, Balamw I posted almost exactly what you just said (post above this). See post 179.
Yeah, that's why I said I was repeating. It was probably also mentioned elsewhere too. I know it came up in my earlier post that linked to Wikipedia as well. http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=12362611&postcount=52
I resorted to Wolfram Alpha back in post #18. http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=12362161&postcount=18 :p
B
Yeah, that's why I said I was repeating. It was probably also mentioned elsewhere too. I know it came up in my earlier post that linked to Wikipedia as well. http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=12362611&postcount=52
I resorted to Wolfram Alpha back in post #18. http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=12362161&postcount=18 :p
B
SodaPopMonster
Jul 30, 08:52 AM
Remember the "Proximity sensor" patent?
That would be a great way to have a keyboard and numbers, wouldn't it?
2+2
That would be a great way to have a keyboard and numbers, wouldn't it?
2+2
danielsan26
Jul 29, 10:33 PM
Apple owns iphone.org (ownership info) (http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=www.iphone.org). It just mirrors their homepage, but has a different IP. It appears they've owned it for a while. Is this old news?
Benjy91
Apr 25, 09:55 AM
And remarkably inaccurate when I looked myself up. It has a bit of correct information on my parents. I'm actually surprised at how wrong they were since I have a fairly large internet footprint (of course, these guys probably don't have Google's database since they're just skimming).
It's inaccurate because it doesn't track YOUR location, just the location of your nearest Cell Tower.
It's inaccurate because it doesn't track YOUR location, just the location of your nearest Cell Tower.
toxic
May 6, 12:23 AM
the PPC-Intel move is not comparable - Steve Jobs intended to switch to Intel from the beginning. this is just a backwards move for anything beyond the netbook space, which Apple isn't competing in.
Isair
Apr 5, 06:38 PM
0 x 2 = 0
Win.
Win.
PeterQVenkman
Apr 18, 03:40 PM
So devoid of innovation that everyone has basically copied the iPad and iPhone's OS and product design over the last 3 1/2 years.
The OS, sure. Samsung made that look VERY close to iOS.
The product design at Apple, however is just reinterpreted stuff from Dieter Rams. Products that function well start to look similar for a reason, though. If it ain't broke....
http://www.errortype.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/rams.jpg
The OS, sure. Samsung made that look VERY close to iOS.
The product design at Apple, however is just reinterpreted stuff from Dieter Rams. Products that function well start to look similar for a reason, though. If it ain't broke....
http://www.errortype.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/rams.jpg
Mac'nCheese
Apr 9, 08:11 PM
It's 2. Deal 288 people.
You are 100% wrong. Ask any elementary school math teacher.
You are 100% wrong. Ask any elementary school math teacher.
salmon
Nov 30, 07:47 AM
I would absolutely love a tablet. I would suggest people not get hung up on what other tablet PCs are out there, because I don't see anything out there that matches what I want, and I've been searching for 3+ years now. MS attempted it, did something miserable and half-assed as usual, and so tablets are called a failure. There were lots of MP3 players around before the iPod too.
I want something that fits the following requirements:
harry potter cast. harry
Star Cast and Crew:
I want something that fits the following requirements:
SandynJosh
Apr 23, 09:41 PM
I will be honest and truthful and say for a mobile device on batteries, I'm very impressed as what the iPhone and iPad can do gaming wise.
However I will also state, and I think we all should be honest, that at the moment, Apple are bringing the games DOWN to what their hardware can do, as opposed to making Hardware so great that gaming is being pushed UP to take advantage of Apples industry leading performance.
In your first paragraph you talk about Apple's mobile products, which is where Apple will be putting most of their effort in the foreseeable future. To have successful portable products, having a long time between charges is highly important. The old brute force methods of throwing power and RAM at the gaming performance problem can not be part of the design mindset. Game designers know this and are becoming much better at coding for portable games, but they are not quite there yet. Meanwhile Apple is working to find ways to build in performance and not increase power draw.
THIS is the future as Apple sees it, and their acceptance in the broad general market shows that they are on the right track.
When Apple release GTX580 beating desktops, and/or Xbox360 / PS3 beating gaming devices, I will happily bow down to them being the greatest in graphics.
NOW you have switched to talking about desktop and console gaming computers. THIS is a whole different area. First off, it's a tiny segment of the whole computer market. It's big, but not nearly as huge as what Apple is aiming for with their products.
In a nutshell, Apple's strategy is to capture the mobile device market as completely as they can. They are being highly successful at that strategy from iPods to iPhones, to iPads, to Laptops.
Meanwhile they are growing rapidly in the iMac desktop and tower market due primarily to the halo effect of their success in the portable arena. They are doing this even while the desktop and tower markets are shrinking overall. Can you see why Apple will not be putting a lot of effort into this segment?
But right now, they are trailing by miles due to years of neglect as they just did not have products that could compete, and their one semi attempt at a console got nowhere.
Note: I would LOVE LOVE LOVE Apple to turn this around.
You are right. Apple did not have products that could compete in the desktop and console markets. This was primarily due to game developers not interested in writing games for Intel chips and PowerPC chips. Since the installed base for Intel-based computers was more then a order-of-magnitude larger than the installed base of Macs. Apple was never going to enjoy being a suitable gaming platform until they switched to Intel CPUs.
Once Apple made the switch, they have come a long way towards being an acceptable gaming computer, but they have no desire or plans to go after the high end of this market... it's just not that profitable or large. Remember AlienWare? They had the best gaming computer, IMO, and they had to sell themselves to another company to stay alive.
As for the console market, it's crowded with established competitors and will likely see one squeezed out. Not the kind of market that Apple or anyone else should want to jump into.
They need to ditch the "Laptops on a Stand" design of the iMac for starters, but I feel they never will as they have decided they won't compete and they cannot compete in this sector of the market.
I addressed this above. As for the "Laptops on a Stand" design, it's such a bad design that the largest computer company, HP, as well as others, have copied it.
Console wise, I'm not sure they could compete against a 360 or a PS3. Let's say Apple against a PS4 or a Xbox720
Nope, can't see that happening either.
I address this above. Apple doesn't want to be in this arena. It's small and the competition is deadly.
The low power/trimmed down, casual gamers games, seems to be the only area they are going for.
Once more you are correct. There are many many times more gamers that want a short diversion while they have a few minutes away from home, then those who want to spend thousands on an immersive game experience that requires a larger block of time. "Portability with games optional" trumps "wired to the wall and game-focused" all the way to the bank.
But Again, I would LOVE Apple to turn this around and take high end graphics seriously in their future products.
The high-end gamer is not on Apple's radar at the moment and likely never will be unless a way is found to address hi-end graphics on a portable device without impacting battery life.
I know you'd like Apple to chase this rainbow, but they won't, there's no pot of gold at the end.
However I will also state, and I think we all should be honest, that at the moment, Apple are bringing the games DOWN to what their hardware can do, as opposed to making Hardware so great that gaming is being pushed UP to take advantage of Apples industry leading performance.
In your first paragraph you talk about Apple's mobile products, which is where Apple will be putting most of their effort in the foreseeable future. To have successful portable products, having a long time between charges is highly important. The old brute force methods of throwing power and RAM at the gaming performance problem can not be part of the design mindset. Game designers know this and are becoming much better at coding for portable games, but they are not quite there yet. Meanwhile Apple is working to find ways to build in performance and not increase power draw.
THIS is the future as Apple sees it, and their acceptance in the broad general market shows that they are on the right track.
When Apple release GTX580 beating desktops, and/or Xbox360 / PS3 beating gaming devices, I will happily bow down to them being the greatest in graphics.
NOW you have switched to talking about desktop and console gaming computers. THIS is a whole different area. First off, it's a tiny segment of the whole computer market. It's big, but not nearly as huge as what Apple is aiming for with their products.
In a nutshell, Apple's strategy is to capture the mobile device market as completely as they can. They are being highly successful at that strategy from iPods to iPhones, to iPads, to Laptops.
Meanwhile they are growing rapidly in the iMac desktop and tower market due primarily to the halo effect of their success in the portable arena. They are doing this even while the desktop and tower markets are shrinking overall. Can you see why Apple will not be putting a lot of effort into this segment?
But right now, they are trailing by miles due to years of neglect as they just did not have products that could compete, and their one semi attempt at a console got nowhere.
Note: I would LOVE LOVE LOVE Apple to turn this around.
You are right. Apple did not have products that could compete in the desktop and console markets. This was primarily due to game developers not interested in writing games for Intel chips and PowerPC chips. Since the installed base for Intel-based computers was more then a order-of-magnitude larger than the installed base of Macs. Apple was never going to enjoy being a suitable gaming platform until they switched to Intel CPUs.
Once Apple made the switch, they have come a long way towards being an acceptable gaming computer, but they have no desire or plans to go after the high end of this market... it's just not that profitable or large. Remember AlienWare? They had the best gaming computer, IMO, and they had to sell themselves to another company to stay alive.
As for the console market, it's crowded with established competitors and will likely see one squeezed out. Not the kind of market that Apple or anyone else should want to jump into.
They need to ditch the "Laptops on a Stand" design of the iMac for starters, but I feel they never will as they have decided they won't compete and they cannot compete in this sector of the market.
I addressed this above. As for the "Laptops on a Stand" design, it's such a bad design that the largest computer company, HP, as well as others, have copied it.
Console wise, I'm not sure they could compete against a 360 or a PS3. Let's say Apple against a PS4 or a Xbox720
Nope, can't see that happening either.
I address this above. Apple doesn't want to be in this arena. It's small and the competition is deadly.
The low power/trimmed down, casual gamers games, seems to be the only area they are going for.
Once more you are correct. There are many many times more gamers that want a short diversion while they have a few minutes away from home, then those who want to spend thousands on an immersive game experience that requires a larger block of time. "Portability with games optional" trumps "wired to the wall and game-focused" all the way to the bank.
But Again, I would LOVE Apple to turn this around and take high end graphics seriously in their future products.
The high-end gamer is not on Apple's radar at the moment and likely never will be unless a way is found to address hi-end graphics on a portable device without impacting battery life.
I know you'd like Apple to chase this rainbow, but they won't, there's no pot of gold at the end.
spazzcat
Mar 29, 09:03 AM
At least it works on the market leading platform. ;)
harry potter cast photo shoot.
harry potter cast 2011.
tokevino
Aug 7, 03:47 PM
Here's other point of view: I want to use OSX in everyday use (Safari, Mail, iTunes, graphic design, Dreamweaver etc... and OSX overall). But sometimes I want to play games too, and it's awesome that nowadays it's possible to boot into Windows and play games there and then boot back into OSX. Are you saying that Apple should totally forget all users who would like to use OSX but occasionally play games on Windows, and let them buy PCs? Most of the gamers do not use their computer ONLY to play games. Consumer tower would be good for Apple to get new switchers and get more marketshare.
Bootcamp, how could you possibly miss that?!
Bootcamp, how could you possibly miss that?!
spazzcat
Mar 29, 09:06 AM
I dont think so, Amazon cannot get the app needed for the streaming/storing of content on your phone or tablet approved in the appstore since. It violates apples terms, if you or anyone else has an issue with it, contact apple.
of quot;Harry Potterquot;
Harry Potter star Rupert Grint
Harry Potter and the Deathly
corywoolf
Aug 4, 01:22 AM
Not really any new news, but the September date bummed me out.
I knew it would be another month or so, but I am so anxious to get a new laptop, the thought of waiting another 4-6 weeks (at best) is a bummer.
I just hope Apple doesn't wait until Paris Expo to announce it. Then we're talking 2+ months.
My money is on iMac and iPod nano updates in Paris, MacBook in November, the Long awaited Media Mac Mini at Macworld, new video iPod along with the launch of iTunes Video Store, as well as the long rumored new games for the iPod. Maybe a new iSight that is small enough to clip onto the iPod? Bah, I am getting way too carried away. Back to the point, since this is a pro targeted conference, it makes perfect sense for the MacBook Pro and Mac Pro to make appearances.
I knew it would be another month or so, but I am so anxious to get a new laptop, the thought of waiting another 4-6 weeks (at best) is a bummer.
I just hope Apple doesn't wait until Paris Expo to announce it. Then we're talking 2+ months.
My money is on iMac and iPod nano updates in Paris, MacBook in November, the Long awaited Media Mac Mini at Macworld, new video iPod along with the launch of iTunes Video Store, as well as the long rumored new games for the iPod. Maybe a new iSight that is small enough to clip onto the iPod? Bah, I am getting way too carried away. Back to the point, since this is a pro targeted conference, it makes perfect sense for the MacBook Pro and Mac Pro to make appearances.
carlos700
Aug 2, 09:30 PM
I think since they announced it so far a head of schedule, they might have those pages up and running yet.
Ok, that makes sense. I guess Conroe is the only Core 2 Duo chip that's available today. (And Woodcrest but it's marketed as Xeon 5100)
Ok, that makes sense. I guess Conroe is the only Core 2 Duo chip that's available today. (And Woodcrest but it's marketed as Xeon 5100)
elppa
May 6, 03:20 AM
Even if ARM DID get ahead, it wouldn't take Intel long to catch up... Then what?
ARM have been ahead in mobile for well over a decade. Intel haven't caught up yet, admitiely some of that is due to Intel not really trying.
ARM have been ahead in mobile for well over a decade. Intel haven't caught up yet, admitiely some of that is due to Intel not really trying.
Coolerking
Sep 11, 12:33 PM
I bet ya a Core 2 Duo processor in my new macbook that Apple will be showcasing some more (of the cooler) applications in Leopard. I wouldn't be suprised if they sync up to a new Ipod or Iphone.
You heard it here first.
:cool:
You heard it here first.
:cool:
mscriv
May 5, 10:19 AM
Wow, one person in your little band of misfits dies and look at the lot of you, shaking your fists at the sky and screaming to the gods that life's not fair.
Ok, I'll break from character to explain a little:
The system is solid and consistent between the villain and the heroes. I think you all are over thinking it. Ravenvii said early on in his explanation that it might be easier to think of the villains turns as points to avoid confusion. Basically during my round I earn 2 points to spend any way I choose. Some actions require one turn/point to accomplish. For example:
- move to a new room
- self heal
Thus, if during my turn I choose to move or heal then in essence I've used one of the 2 points/turns to accomplish this task meaning for the rest of the round I only have 1 point/turn left. Setting traps or sending out my minions cost various points and thus I must save up points for some things. If I choose to save points then I'm essentially forfeiting action in that turn or for the entire round by choosing to carry over the point or points to my next round.
Heroes actions work the same way they just aren't broken down into points for easier understanding. You could choose to think of it as getting 2 points at the beginning of your rounds as well and in turn it would cost you 1 point to do any of the following:
- explore a room
- move to a new room
Thus, with your entire round you can take two actions or turns, each costing one point. The only difference is heroes can't save up points like the villain can.
So, you see, the system is consistent on both sides.
Now don't tell anyone I helped you out. I've got a reputation to uphold as a nasty villain and all. ;)
Ok, I'll break from character to explain a little:
The system is solid and consistent between the villain and the heroes. I think you all are over thinking it. Ravenvii said early on in his explanation that it might be easier to think of the villains turns as points to avoid confusion. Basically during my round I earn 2 points to spend any way I choose. Some actions require one turn/point to accomplish. For example:
- move to a new room
- self heal
Thus, if during my turn I choose to move or heal then in essence I've used one of the 2 points/turns to accomplish this task meaning for the rest of the round I only have 1 point/turn left. Setting traps or sending out my minions cost various points and thus I must save up points for some things. If I choose to save points then I'm essentially forfeiting action in that turn or for the entire round by choosing to carry over the point or points to my next round.
Heroes actions work the same way they just aren't broken down into points for easier understanding. You could choose to think of it as getting 2 points at the beginning of your rounds as well and in turn it would cost you 1 point to do any of the following:
- explore a room
- move to a new room
Thus, with your entire round you can take two actions or turns, each costing one point. The only difference is heroes can't save up points like the villain can.
So, you see, the system is consistent on both sides.
Now don't tell anyone I helped you out. I've got a reputation to uphold as a nasty villain and all. ;)
Nostromo
May 6, 02:20 AM
If ARM is indeed able to make high-performance CPUs, then a move like this would be one of the most significant ones in the computing history. Let's face it: the x86 architecture is a dead end. Its needlessly complicated and builds on obsolete tech. Internally, the modern x86 CPUs aren't even x86 anymore - they decompose, recompile and reorder the machine code as they execute it. The ARM assembly is more suited for modern computing as it is more efficient as the x86 code and allows better CPU pipeline utilization.
The real question is whether ARM is able to create a CPU which is powerful enough to compete with Intel's offerings. The x86 may be inefficient but the sophisticated design of Intel CPUs results in great performance. ARM must really step on it to attain these levels.
P.S. If something like this should happen, I am sure that ARM will include hardware emulation layer for x86 instructions, for compatibility with older software. Any anyway, what does it cost to recompile an application? Indeed: nothing (if the application is competently written, that is).
I'm sure there will be another big change in processors and software.
ARM sounds a bit like cloud computing: many smaller processors.
It probably depends on the development of the ARM. Who knows what potential is in them.
The real question is whether ARM is able to create a CPU which is powerful enough to compete with Intel's offerings. The x86 may be inefficient but the sophisticated design of Intel CPUs results in great performance. ARM must really step on it to attain these levels.
P.S. If something like this should happen, I am sure that ARM will include hardware emulation layer for x86 instructions, for compatibility with older software. Any anyway, what does it cost to recompile an application? Indeed: nothing (if the application is competently written, that is).
I'm sure there will be another big change in processors and software.
ARM sounds a bit like cloud computing: many smaller processors.
It probably depends on the development of the ARM. Who knows what potential is in them.
spazzcat
Mar 29, 09:00 AM
The price is actually amazing. MobileMe is $100/year for 20GB. Amazon is $20/year for the same storage plus Amazon is running a promotion through the end of the year where if you buy a digital album from Amazon, you get 1 free year of 20GB of storage.
Cavepainter
Mar 30, 02:36 PM
I hardly think $1 for 20 gigabytes of available anywhere storage is very unreasonable.
Maybe that rate wouldn't be bad, but if you read the article, that's not what they're charging. Beyond the initial free amount, its $1 per 1 gig, not $1 per 20 gigs. A terabyte per year is a thousand dollars a year. That's not too cheap. And this isn't including bandwidth usage, which is gonna cost money too, of course. Plus, what do you think, are these rates and bandwidth usage costs gonna be higher or lower in the future?
They (banks) aren't storing physical cash somewhere anymore, it's all just a line of electronic code that states what your balance is.
Well, it actually it still exists as money, but of course banks aren't storing it all in a vault- they're loaning it out to other people, at rates 10 to 100 times greater than the interest rate they are offering you for using that money- and they're using your money to make them money. I'm sure they could loan out money at much lower rates and still do fine, but that's what we're used to paying, so there you go. But anyway, back on track-
If you want premium content, you pay for it.
That premium content you're happy to be paying lots of money for is actually making the provider plenty of money on the back end too- remember cable and satellite television still has plenty of advertisements. Again, they could probably charge you a third of what you currently pay and it would still be profitable. (I'm just sayin'...)
People just think it's ridiculous to spend money on music because avenues have popped up where you can get it for free.
True, but for me, no, I actually buy my music and support the artists- I just think its ridiculous to buy my music and pay someone else over and over and over again, forever, just to be able listen to it.
I have 2 computers at home, a laptop, a phone that has storage, a DVR, even my Xbox can store music files..... How nice to be able to visit my parents, or go on vacation, or be at a friend's house, log on to their computer, and have my entire music library instantly available at my fingertips.
80 gigs of music in a computer's memory doesn't actually "weigh" all that much. You can have all those files right there on your devices right now, unless you have terabytes of things to store. As storage continues to grow on computers, I think you'll find that the prices will be more and more appealing for larger and larger amounts of storage.
Look, I understand your points, and if you have multiple platforms that need to share and sync enormous amounts of files, that can be a challenge and the cloud would be convenient. But for the amount of music and photography and other files I have and the way I would store it and access it, I personally would rather just have all the files I need right there on my computer at my fingertips without having to pay someone to access it from a remote location. You're certainly free to spend money to access things you already purchased, but its not for me. To each their own.
Maybe that rate wouldn't be bad, but if you read the article, that's not what they're charging. Beyond the initial free amount, its $1 per 1 gig, not $1 per 20 gigs. A terabyte per year is a thousand dollars a year. That's not too cheap. And this isn't including bandwidth usage, which is gonna cost money too, of course. Plus, what do you think, are these rates and bandwidth usage costs gonna be higher or lower in the future?
They (banks) aren't storing physical cash somewhere anymore, it's all just a line of electronic code that states what your balance is.
Well, it actually it still exists as money, but of course banks aren't storing it all in a vault- they're loaning it out to other people, at rates 10 to 100 times greater than the interest rate they are offering you for using that money- and they're using your money to make them money. I'm sure they could loan out money at much lower rates and still do fine, but that's what we're used to paying, so there you go. But anyway, back on track-
If you want premium content, you pay for it.
That premium content you're happy to be paying lots of money for is actually making the provider plenty of money on the back end too- remember cable and satellite television still has plenty of advertisements. Again, they could probably charge you a third of what you currently pay and it would still be profitable. (I'm just sayin'...)
People just think it's ridiculous to spend money on music because avenues have popped up where you can get it for free.
True, but for me, no, I actually buy my music and support the artists- I just think its ridiculous to buy my music and pay someone else over and over and over again, forever, just to be able listen to it.
I have 2 computers at home, a laptop, a phone that has storage, a DVR, even my Xbox can store music files..... How nice to be able to visit my parents, or go on vacation, or be at a friend's house, log on to their computer, and have my entire music library instantly available at my fingertips.
80 gigs of music in a computer's memory doesn't actually "weigh" all that much. You can have all those files right there on your devices right now, unless you have terabytes of things to store. As storage continues to grow on computers, I think you'll find that the prices will be more and more appealing for larger and larger amounts of storage.
Look, I understand your points, and if you have multiple platforms that need to share and sync enormous amounts of files, that can be a challenge and the cloud would be convenient. But for the amount of music and photography and other files I have and the way I would store it and access it, I personally would rather just have all the files I need right there on my computer at my fingertips without having to pay someone to access it from a remote location. You're certainly free to spend money to access things you already purchased, but its not for me. To each their own.