kallisti
Apr 10, 11:16 PM
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5262/5609106228_db324aed6f_b.jpg
Reminded me of a flower stem for some reason.
Reminded me of a flower stem for some reason.
grassland
Apr 7, 07:57 AM
all aboard:)
kennyt72
Apr 14, 12:52 PM
http://i.imgur.com/FWQIv.png
666MB for AT&T iPhone 4.
same for O2 iPhone 4 in the UK
666MB for AT&T iPhone 4.
same for O2 iPhone 4 in the UK
johnnyrb
Apr 11, 04:32 PM
Why no Thunderbolt cards for MacPro users?
more...
FloatingBones
Nov 20, 01:03 AM
I don't need to do squat guy.
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.
WTF do I care about your reasons for wanting to take away my choice to use Flash? I don't.
In other words, you are not competent to carry on a rational discussion. You're just here to vent.
It's not about "propping up" flash, it's about being able to access TODAY'S Internet, not hoping some day that we won't need Flash.
Users of those 120M+ devices don't have to hope. They are already free of Flash!
We just want to use the Internet unfettered by Steve Jobs playing the part of a Communist Dictator.
The analogy makes no sense. Nobody is forcing you to use any Apple product.
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)
The only reasons I see from you are excuses to praise Steve.
The fact that I can't catch zero-day Adobe attacks on my iPhone is a great reason to praise Apple's decision.
which does NOTHING to make other Flash functions work, BTW, leaving many sites useless even so
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?
It's a drop in the ocean compared to the world at large nor should they have to be held hostage by Steve Jobs whose sole goal in life is to get you to pay him for every little thing you do in this world.
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.
He wants to push his warped agendas and ring every last cent out of you no matter how inconvenient it might be to you.
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 people who bought those 120M+ devices disagree with you.
He wants to force the destruction of flash by denying his customers access to a large percentage of the world's web sites all the time while lying about iOS devices being able to access the 'real' or 'full' Internet.
This is the second little lie. Apple did provide a choice: they approved the SkyFire App. They didn't have to do that.
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.
if you don't have Flash, you don't have the full Internet.
And that is the third little lie. Flash is a proprietary and legacy platform. It's on the way down now.
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?
I just want innovative products. That is what Steve is good at. That doesn't mean I want his arrogant ego side pushing those products with restrictions that have nothing to do with the technology and only to do with Steve's need to be a control freak.
And this is number four. If those words were true, you would be able to explain why my four huge concerns for running Flash in iOS Safari are not valid. But you can't do that!
If the flash experience is so great, please tell us what exact Flash sites are you talking about? What exact legacy flash applications are running on those sites to which you can find no substitute on your iOS device?
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.
WTF do I care about your reasons for wanting to take away my choice to use Flash? I don't.
In other words, you are not competent to carry on a rational discussion. You're just here to vent.
It's not about "propping up" flash, it's about being able to access TODAY'S Internet, not hoping some day that we won't need Flash.
Users of those 120M+ devices don't have to hope. They are already free of Flash!
We just want to use the Internet unfettered by Steve Jobs playing the part of a Communist Dictator.
The analogy makes no sense. Nobody is forcing you to use any Apple product.
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)
The only reasons I see from you are excuses to praise Steve.
The fact that I can't catch zero-day Adobe attacks on my iPhone is a great reason to praise Apple's decision.
which does NOTHING to make other Flash functions work, BTW, leaving many sites useless even so
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?
It's a drop in the ocean compared to the world at large nor should they have to be held hostage by Steve Jobs whose sole goal in life is to get you to pay him for every little thing you do in this world.
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.
He wants to push his warped agendas and ring every last cent out of you no matter how inconvenient it might be to you.
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 people who bought those 120M+ devices disagree with you.
He wants to force the destruction of flash by denying his customers access to a large percentage of the world's web sites all the time while lying about iOS devices being able to access the 'real' or 'full' Internet.
This is the second little lie. Apple did provide a choice: they approved the SkyFire App. They didn't have to do that.
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.
if you don't have Flash, you don't have the full Internet.
And that is the third little lie. Flash is a proprietary and legacy platform. It's on the way down now.
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?
I just want innovative products. That is what Steve is good at. That doesn't mean I want his arrogant ego side pushing those products with restrictions that have nothing to do with the technology and only to do with Steve's need to be a control freak.
And this is number four. If those words were true, you would be able to explain why my four huge concerns for running Flash in iOS Safari are not valid. But you can't do that!
If the flash experience is so great, please tell us what exact Flash sites are you talking about? What exact legacy flash applications are running on those sites to which you can find no substitute on your iOS device?
kfscoll
May 2, 12:41 PM
Unless the form factor of any given product in the Macintosh line is radically different or re-designed, leaked pictures of such products are boring and uninteresting.
Plus the iPhones are still the "New, hot thing" in Apple-land, so even a millimeter's difference in the case is a big deal.
Then why all of the leaked photos of the new 2011 MacBook Pros and their boxes prior to release? The form factor of those computers literally didn't change at all.
I'm really surprised we haven't yet seen any leaked photos of the new iMacs if they're indeed coming out tomorrow. I guess we'll see soon enough.
Plus the iPhones are still the "New, hot thing" in Apple-land, so even a millimeter's difference in the case is a big deal.
Then why all of the leaked photos of the new 2011 MacBook Pros and their boxes prior to release? The form factor of those computers literally didn't change at all.
I'm really surprised we haven't yet seen any leaked photos of the new iMacs if they're indeed coming out tomorrow. I guess we'll see soon enough.
more...
nxent
Jul 11, 02:43 PM
This is scary. While I have no doubts Apple's ability to "get it" will make Microsoft's offering pale by comparison, Microsoft might be able to more than make up for it through marketing and their dominant position in the computer and home gaming market. Then, as in the past, their monopolistic practices will slowly edge out Apple.
And I guarantee you that Microsoft will be much more willing to "play ball" with the movie studios to get the best/preferred deals in offering downloadable movies.
not so fast. remember 'origami'. "who?" "what??" yeh, exactly. msoft's tablet PC that generated a lot of buzz before it's launch. and when it launched, it promptly flopped, hence the hollow response when it's name is shouted. i agree that an xbox branded device will have to compete with both psp and ipod, and even nintendo's ds; and hence i don't think apple's in any real danger. nevertheless, it is 'bout that time they release another major ipod revision.
And I guarantee you that Microsoft will be much more willing to "play ball" with the movie studios to get the best/preferred deals in offering downloadable movies.
not so fast. remember 'origami'. "who?" "what??" yeh, exactly. msoft's tablet PC that generated a lot of buzz before it's launch. and when it launched, it promptly flopped, hence the hollow response when it's name is shouted. i agree that an xbox branded device will have to compete with both psp and ipod, and even nintendo's ds; and hence i don't think apple's in any real danger. nevertheless, it is 'bout that time they release another major ipod revision.
LightSpeed1
Apr 14, 12:55 AM
I still have to say that I'll believe when I see it.
more...
Kilamite
Oct 3, 09:43 AM
This is exactly why I turn 3G off on my iPhone. The reception in Edinburgh is appalling - I walk around the city and my phone is constantly skipping between GPRS and 3G. And sometimes it'll just say "No Service" until I turn 3G off and it forces GPRS connection.
I think the iPhone has really outlined the flaws and poor reception that carriers have in some major areas.
I think the iPhone has really outlined the flaws and poor reception that carriers have in some major areas.
Macaroony
Mar 9, 01:38 AM
I would like to see them pull off a change of actor for once, without changing the character. I think it's an insult to the audience's intelligence that networks think we can't accept someone else in the role. They always go for the knee-jerk reaction, which is to kill off the character. Give us some credit, and a chance for another actor to make the role his own. It's not like it's unheard of. How many James Bonds have there been??
I'm sorry, but this never works. At some point, in every show that did the that it becomes some kind of inside joke on and off camera. I'm reminded of the 200th episode of Stargate: SG-1, where upon a ridiculous parody of the show one of the characters says:
"Never underestimate your audience. They're generally sensitive, intelligent people who respond positively to quality entertainment."
This on a sci-fi show with enough technobabble to keep you busy arguing with other viewers about the authenticity of the in-show's reality.
For movies it's different because each one is a narrative of it's own. You can't can't compare Sean Connery with Pierce Brosnan as you can't compare Never Say Never with Tomorrow Never Dies because both movies are done in their individual way.
On a television series, you have a continuous narrative that can change its direction, but as soon as you change major plot points or dare switch the main actors with new ones, that's a plain insult to the audience who watched from the start.
I'm sorry, but this never works. At some point, in every show that did the that it becomes some kind of inside joke on and off camera. I'm reminded of the 200th episode of Stargate: SG-1, where upon a ridiculous parody of the show one of the characters says:
"Never underestimate your audience. They're generally sensitive, intelligent people who respond positively to quality entertainment."
This on a sci-fi show with enough technobabble to keep you busy arguing with other viewers about the authenticity of the in-show's reality.
For movies it's different because each one is a narrative of it's own. You can't can't compare Sean Connery with Pierce Brosnan as you can't compare Never Say Never with Tomorrow Never Dies because both movies are done in their individual way.
On a television series, you have a continuous narrative that can change its direction, but as soon as you change major plot points or dare switch the main actors with new ones, that's a plain insult to the audience who watched from the start.
more...
AppleScruff1
Apr 13, 07:27 PM
Big deal.
MacNut
Mar 3, 07:45 PM
If you look at Charlie's character on the show and really every character he has ever played they all mirror his real life. He has made millions playing a party animal that sleeps around. No wonder he is so delusional now.
more...
Stevesbodyguard
Apr 28, 03:51 PM
I held one earlier today and it felt .0001 oz. heavier. Perhaps it is just my super human ability to weigh things instantly that told me this....but still....:cool:
jholzner
Dec 1, 02:14 PM
I'm glad they did this and I hope Apple acts on all the things they found ASAP!
more...
SpaceKyd
Apr 14, 12:35 AM
Fail apple!! Faiiillllllll!
▄██████████████▄▐█▄▄▄▄█▌
██████▌▄▌▄▐▐▌███▌▀▀██▀▀
████▄█▌▄▌▄▐▐▌▀███▄▄█▌
▄▄▄▄▄██████████████▀
▄██████████████▄▐█▄▄▄▄█▌
██████▌▄▌▄▐▐▌███▌▀▀██▀▀
████▄█▌▄▌▄▐▐▌▀███▄▄█▌
▄▄▄▄▄██████████████▀
Eriden
Mar 16, 02:05 PM
First off...Eriden nice meeting you today, sir! Was a fun morning less the disappointment of neither of us getting our desired model.
Brea had a 105 year old mall cop who yelled at some kids sitting in the middle of the floor. I'm almost positive he called for backup. Haha
Just ordered mine online. At least have one in the pipeline. And hey...it is getting shipped to Mass so I'll save $20 on sales tax :)
It was good meeting you too! Hopefully we won't have to wait the whole 4-5 weeks. I'd be back at the crack of dawn tomorrow, but I'm up against deadlines for work projects.
And that mall cop was hilarious. He probably hasn't felt relevant in 30 years. Getting to glare at mallgoers and check in with his supervisors probably made his day.
Brea had a 105 year old mall cop who yelled at some kids sitting in the middle of the floor. I'm almost positive he called for backup. Haha
Just ordered mine online. At least have one in the pipeline. And hey...it is getting shipped to Mass so I'll save $20 on sales tax :)
It was good meeting you too! Hopefully we won't have to wait the whole 4-5 weeks. I'd be back at the crack of dawn tomorrow, but I'm up against deadlines for work projects.
And that mall cop was hilarious. He probably hasn't felt relevant in 30 years. Getting to glare at mallgoers and check in with his supervisors probably made his day.
more...
blahblah100
Apr 29, 02:56 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.
How so? Why would there need to be some explaining, if this was the case?
How so? Why would there need to be some explaining, if this was the case?
wovel
Apr 28, 12:46 PM
That low price sells?
According to your past posts, selling phones at a low price ($49 in this case) is a sign of desperation, of an attempt to flood the market.
Heck, that's far cheaper than BOGO sales for other handsets where two people have sign long contracts.
Or, could it just possibly be that people aren't always swayed just by price? That the device itself could be a major factor?
Are there any carriers not giving away at least one free Android phone...
According to your past posts, selling phones at a low price ($49 in this case) is a sign of desperation, of an attempt to flood the market.
Heck, that's far cheaper than BOGO sales for other handsets where two people have sign long contracts.
Or, could it just possibly be that people aren't always swayed just by price? That the device itself could be a major factor?
Are there any carriers not giving away at least one free Android phone...
lmalave
Oct 19, 08:18 AM
Its clear Apple is missing something in the midrange desk top line. Its time for the Cube or Macintosh or headless iMac or Max Mini or something. iMac isnt for everyone and the world has billions of big beautiful displays just waiting for a midrange Mac but if Apple prices it again the same as the towers it will be another failure. Its way past time for the next Macintosh. Needs a real GPU, at least 1 expansion slot and should be priced right along with ugly iMac:D or a pinch below.
This is not beyond the realm of possibility. I could see Apple modifying the Mac mini at some point to make the graphics card more accessible and upgradeable. But of course it would be a laptop graphics card and not a full desktop graphics card. Do ATI / nVidia sell something like mini-PCI graphics cards to consumers?
But anyway, althought it's a possibility I think it's a slim one, since gamers are just not Apple's focus right now...
This is not beyond the realm of possibility. I could see Apple modifying the Mac mini at some point to make the graphics card more accessible and upgradeable. But of course it would be a laptop graphics card and not a full desktop graphics card. Do ATI / nVidia sell something like mini-PCI graphics cards to consumers?
But anyway, althought it's a possibility I think it's a slim one, since gamers are just not Apple's focus right now...
foodle
Apr 14, 12:57 PM
A sure way to tell when a technology is running out of steam and nearing saturation is when the big new thing is a different colored case. Just look at Dell laptops or the iPod line. Not a good sign from Apple.
Patch^
Jul 11, 05:15 PM
what device is on this page: http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/experiences/onthego.mspx
looks pretty cool lol.
looks pretty cool lol.
Moyank24
Apr 20, 04:25 PM
Well this has been slow going...where are all the rest of the usual suspects? No Jav? Or Ravenvii?
KingCrimson
Apr 23, 01:05 PM
another unhappy marriage, can't we all just play nice.
Since when do global mega-corporations every play nice. Dude, it's us against them. Maybe you just found that out.
Since when do global mega-corporations every play nice. Dude, it's us against them. Maybe you just found that out.
heisetax
Jul 10, 10:34 AM
Lets hope it doesnt end up costing as much as MS Office....:eek:
At $79 a year it will probably be 5 years before the program moves to a commonly useful level where it may have the ability to replace MS Office. The very casual Word Processor user will not have to wait very long, maybe Pages 3 or Pages 4. With the 5 X $79 = $395 we move into the price range of the non-educational price of MS Office. But for the heavy Office user, 5 years may not be long enough.
Apple would used to calculate the Real Total Cost of Ownership for Macs. They would include after purchase service & support costs. We need to do the same for iWork. iWork is not a simple $79 program useless you wait for the version you want, purchase it & then add no updates that have a purchase price. If you want a slimmed down program purchase now, but have few features to give few benefits. If you want a more complete program just wait for the 5th or 6th upgrade. But this way you have no program to use for another 2 1/2 to 3 1/2 years. Anything else requires multiplying the $79 by by a 2, 4, 5 or even larger number to get the true cost of iWork.
Bill the TaxMan
At $79 a year it will probably be 5 years before the program moves to a commonly useful level where it may have the ability to replace MS Office. The very casual Word Processor user will not have to wait very long, maybe Pages 3 or Pages 4. With the 5 X $79 = $395 we move into the price range of the non-educational price of MS Office. But for the heavy Office user, 5 years may not be long enough.
Apple would used to calculate the Real Total Cost of Ownership for Macs. They would include after purchase service & support costs. We need to do the same for iWork. iWork is not a simple $79 program useless you wait for the version you want, purchase it & then add no updates that have a purchase price. If you want a slimmed down program purchase now, but have few features to give few benefits. If you want a more complete program just wait for the 5th or 6th upgrade. But this way you have no program to use for another 2 1/2 to 3 1/2 years. Anything else requires multiplying the $79 by by a 2, 4, 5 or even larger number to get the true cost of iWork.
Bill the TaxMan
ไม่มีความคิดเห็น:
แสดงความคิดเห็น