quagmire
Jul 27, 12:27 PM
This is why I do not see "electric cars" gaining mainstream popularity any time soon.
Me neither. Anyone hoping the volt would be priced below $30k was on something, IMHO. I was personally hoping for $35-37K due that $7500 tax credit would make the volt a bit more appealing. That lease offering doesn't look bad though. I wonder what are the terms of the lease.
Me neither. Anyone hoping the volt would be priced below $30k was on something, IMHO. I was personally hoping for $35-37K due that $7500 tax credit would make the volt a bit more appealing. That lease offering doesn't look bad though. I wonder what are the terms of the lease.
matrix07
Apr 16, 01:11 PM
12 years old?
Miss by a mile pal. iPad has nothing to do with your opinion about iPhone. If you can't accept the fact that iPhone has re-invented the phone industry, a fact all the media accepted, then even a hundred iPad in your household couldn't save your ********. You know that if you're older than 15.
Miss by a mile pal. iPad has nothing to do with your opinion about iPhone. If you can't accept the fact that iPhone has re-invented the phone industry, a fact all the media accepted, then even a hundred iPad in your household couldn't save your ********. You know that if you're older than 15.
Clive At Five
Oct 3, 02:24 PM
This will be the last "really impressive" processor upgrade for 2+ years into the future. Remaining improvements will be in features, communications, integration, sooftware, etc.
I disagree. While the "MHz War" is likely drawing to a close, the "Multicore War" is just starting. Within the next 2 years, I'd be willing to bet just about anything that we'll be seeing single CPUs with 4 cores (for sure), 8 cores, and the beginning rumblings of 16 core CPUs. If you ask me, the past 4 years have yeilded very little progress in terms of CPU speed. A 3.0 GHz Pentium 4 is comparable to a 2.0 GHz Yonah... and now that we've ventured into Multicore Land, I guarantee that there will be huge processor speed increases.
OSX wil be updaed to 10.5 of course as this is the central theme of 1-07. Related to this we will see updates of iApps to take advantage of new features and increased integration.
I don't think Leopard will be out yet. I don't have any reason to back that up, I just don't think that Apple is in a huge rush to get it out. I'm pretty sure they'll want to polish it down to the last detail in lieu of Vista coming out. The better Leopard looks when compared to Vista, the more praise Apple will get for it. You have no idea how many people I've talked to are planning on waiting 6-12 months after its release before buying Vista. Those months are Apple's big chance to convert a lot of PC users while they bask in the sunlight of a job well done. They're not going to release a rush-job.
-Clive
I disagree. While the "MHz War" is likely drawing to a close, the "Multicore War" is just starting. Within the next 2 years, I'd be willing to bet just about anything that we'll be seeing single CPUs with 4 cores (for sure), 8 cores, and the beginning rumblings of 16 core CPUs. If you ask me, the past 4 years have yeilded very little progress in terms of CPU speed. A 3.0 GHz Pentium 4 is comparable to a 2.0 GHz Yonah... and now that we've ventured into Multicore Land, I guarantee that there will be huge processor speed increases.
OSX wil be updaed to 10.5 of course as this is the central theme of 1-07. Related to this we will see updates of iApps to take advantage of new features and increased integration.
I don't think Leopard will be out yet. I don't have any reason to back that up, I just don't think that Apple is in a huge rush to get it out. I'm pretty sure they'll want to polish it down to the last detail in lieu of Vista coming out. The better Leopard looks when compared to Vista, the more praise Apple will get for it. You have no idea how many people I've talked to are planning on waiting 6-12 months after its release before buying Vista. Those months are Apple's big chance to convert a lot of PC users while they bask in the sunlight of a job well done. They're not going to release a rush-job.
-Clive
aristobrat
Oct 6, 06:32 PM
I think the biggest problem is when Apple had the chance to change the game by not doing subizided cost they instead give in and just make it worse by forcing a much larger than average subsudize on there phone ($400 vs $250).
Unlock phones puts the network and the phone separete.
I'm not sure why you think Apple's original iPhone sales model was changing the game.
The customer paid the full price of the iPhone, the iPhone was still locked to a specific carrier, and the carrier agreed to pay Apple monthly for every iPhone customer they had.
On top of that, AT&T created a special, cheaper data plan to lure customers in, as the full-priced phone was very off-putting to some.
Sounds like the original iPhone ended up costing AT&T more than the subsidy on the iPhone 3G/3GS did.
And why did Apple change its original sales model? Because they weren't selling nearly as fast as Apple had hoped.
I agree with you that being able to buy any phone and have it work on any network would be awesome. Logistically, I just don't ever see it happening.
Unlock phones puts the network and the phone separete.
I'm not sure why you think Apple's original iPhone sales model was changing the game.
The customer paid the full price of the iPhone, the iPhone was still locked to a specific carrier, and the carrier agreed to pay Apple monthly for every iPhone customer they had.
On top of that, AT&T created a special, cheaper data plan to lure customers in, as the full-priced phone was very off-putting to some.
Sounds like the original iPhone ended up costing AT&T more than the subsidy on the iPhone 3G/3GS did.
And why did Apple change its original sales model? Because they weren't selling nearly as fast as Apple had hoped.
I agree with you that being able to buy any phone and have it work on any network would be awesome. Logistically, I just don't ever see it happening.
GGJstudios
Apr 21, 11:45 AM
It is against forum rules to simply reply "+1": what on earth is the difference between that and clicking a button to say "+1"?
The difference is, clicking the vote button doesn't add a useless post to the thread and doesn't increase the voter's post count (since many have used +1 posts in the past to artificially boost their post counts for avatars, etc.)
The difference is, clicking the vote button doesn't add a useless post to the thread and doesn't increase the voter's post count (since many have used +1 posts in the past to artificially boost their post counts for avatars, etc.)
dethmaShine
Apr 13, 05:06 AM
As stupid as they are, probably not. They're happy with having the most market share, why should they bother changing anything?
That's understandable.
But, when it's as easy to get a virus as downloading a banner ad from a website that you visit ( sometimes even legitimate ones) using IE with ActiveX enabled, then *maybe* a stronger security model is called for.
These days, if you're running Windows and don't have at least a good antivirus, antispyware and (can't hurt) firewall, you're almost assured of getting infected somehow. I see it all the time at work - we have people coming in paying hundreds to have us remove viruses and to install a new antivirus program, because they didn't know the old one expired.
MS has done a lot in the security department; much more than Apple has ever done in the last years. But yes, Windows needed it; Mac OS didn't.
The extent to which viruses appear on windows has decreased but yeah, there are still a lot of viruses and one can easily be caught up in that situation.
If Microsoft was smart, they'd even *consider* doing this - I hate to say it, but look at Mac users - even though we're not immune to potential viruses in the future, how long has OS X been around, and how much malware is out there to infect it? Maybe 5-10 programs? UNIX just has that stronger security model...
I don't think its about malware/viruses.
Mac OS X provides all the features one needs (as a pro and as a consumer - not all though). UNIX is one of the biggest advantages of Mac OS X. Back in the day, the nerd crowd went apple mainly because of Mac OS X's UNIX capabilities. The times have changed though. But I think if Windows 8 comes out as a UNIX compliant, its going to be tough for Apple to reside in the pro-nerd market.
That doesn't mean apple is going to lose marketshare. But that kind of competition is going to be a major setback to apple in reference to how 'expensive' the mac machines are.
That said, and again, times have changed. Apple charges for the complete ecosystem rather than machine by machine OR software by software costs.
I wish windows goes UNIX to attain dead heat with Mac OS X.
I'll be the first one to jump and get a windows laptop (won't leave my macintosh though, ever ;)).
That's understandable.
But, when it's as easy to get a virus as downloading a banner ad from a website that you visit ( sometimes even legitimate ones) using IE with ActiveX enabled, then *maybe* a stronger security model is called for.
These days, if you're running Windows and don't have at least a good antivirus, antispyware and (can't hurt) firewall, you're almost assured of getting infected somehow. I see it all the time at work - we have people coming in paying hundreds to have us remove viruses and to install a new antivirus program, because they didn't know the old one expired.
MS has done a lot in the security department; much more than Apple has ever done in the last years. But yes, Windows needed it; Mac OS didn't.
The extent to which viruses appear on windows has decreased but yeah, there are still a lot of viruses and one can easily be caught up in that situation.
If Microsoft was smart, they'd even *consider* doing this - I hate to say it, but look at Mac users - even though we're not immune to potential viruses in the future, how long has OS X been around, and how much malware is out there to infect it? Maybe 5-10 programs? UNIX just has that stronger security model...
I don't think its about malware/viruses.
Mac OS X provides all the features one needs (as a pro and as a consumer - not all though). UNIX is one of the biggest advantages of Mac OS X. Back in the day, the nerd crowd went apple mainly because of Mac OS X's UNIX capabilities. The times have changed though. But I think if Windows 8 comes out as a UNIX compliant, its going to be tough for Apple to reside in the pro-nerd market.
That doesn't mean apple is going to lose marketshare. But that kind of competition is going to be a major setback to apple in reference to how 'expensive' the mac machines are.
That said, and again, times have changed. Apple charges for the complete ecosystem rather than machine by machine OR software by software costs.
I wish windows goes UNIX to attain dead heat with Mac OS X.
I'll be the first one to jump and get a windows laptop (won't leave my macintosh though, ever ;)).
patseguin
Aug 8, 08:24 AM
I hope this means that they have eliminated the pink cast (and other issues) in the 23" ACD.
prady16
Nov 16, 01:00 PM
Please don't confuse the customer with too many options!
Stick with either Intel or AMD, not both!
Stick with either Intel or AMD, not both!
englishman
Apr 26, 04:50 AM
Be useful to have the title tag set if no-one else has mentioned it.
KeriJane
Apr 9, 12:50 PM
Let's see....
They're FINALLY going to some sort of UNIX thing.... Like Apple did.
Theyre FINALLY getting some sort of responsible backup system.... Like Apple did...
They're FINALLY going to self-contained applications, like Apple...
They're FINALLY building in PDF support like Apple
Etc, etc....
Why not just skip 8 and 9 and call it Windows 10? Or WINDOWS X.... Just like SURPRISE! Apple did! :p
All of which are necessary and seriously overdue. But how can anyone say it's not just another cheap ripoff of Apple yet again?
My big question is... How is MS going to maintain strict control and ownership of a UNIX core?
Isn't that why they've been sticking with their inferior, outdated and disasterously defective proprietary MS technology up until now?
Have Fun,
Keri
They're FINALLY going to some sort of UNIX thing.... Like Apple did.
Theyre FINALLY getting some sort of responsible backup system.... Like Apple did...
They're FINALLY going to self-contained applications, like Apple...
They're FINALLY building in PDF support like Apple
Etc, etc....
Why not just skip 8 and 9 and call it Windows 10? Or WINDOWS X.... Just like SURPRISE! Apple did! :p
All of which are necessary and seriously overdue. But how can anyone say it's not just another cheap ripoff of Apple yet again?
My big question is... How is MS going to maintain strict control and ownership of a UNIX core?
Isn't that why they've been sticking with their inferior, outdated and disasterously defective proprietary MS technology up until now?
Have Fun,
Keri
ifjake
Oct 17, 09:33 AM
That comment about not including the burner is interesting, and I'm at least trying to give it some more thoughtful consideration. Who really needs to burn 30 - 50 GB of data? For backup solutions, wouldn't just getting a huge external hard drive be more practical? Portability might be a factor there, but external drives aren't that cumbersome I don't think. I'm thinking that the majority use of those HD media burners would be to copy movies with illicit applications. Could Apple put in place some protection framework that attempted to only allow creative-works-originating software to burn HD discs, (ie, iMovie, iDVD, FinalCut and other pro apps that use full quality, large size files) therefore denying use of a program that takes a quick and dirty imported disc image and burn it to disc, so that you'd have to work around some long and annoying solution to make an illegal copy (ala burning audio CDs in iTunes and reimporting them to strip the DRM) that would deter any easy mass pirating?
More simply, I'm curious of who out there needs to burn 30 to 50 GB chunks of data, too large for a dual layer DVD to hold, and why.
More simply, I'm curious of who out there needs to burn 30 to 50 GB chunks of data, too large for a dual layer DVD to hold, and why.
Timepass
Aug 7, 09:51 PM
Did you bother to read my whole post? Or were you too excited upon you first glorious revelation?
And maybe I'm not familiar enough with the LCD production process, but I understood that the pixel size was part of the panel so a 24 inch slab would have more pixels than a 23 inch slab. Both monitors have the same resolution.
I also asked how Dell claims greater contrast ratio and brightness (800:1 and 300cd/m2 on the 20 inch) than the Apple? Either someone's lying, or they aren't using identical parts.
edit: BTW, I'm just asking some simple questions trying to clear up my own confusion, there's no need to be a prick
umm no neither is lying. They both are using the same panel but DIFFERENT backlights. Dell back lights are brighter so it allows for a larger contrast ratio and more cd/m2
edit: The panel is pretty much just a color filter. It takes the white light from the back light and filters it colors for what you see on the screen (it more complex than that but it is the simplest way to explain it)
And maybe I'm not familiar enough with the LCD production process, but I understood that the pixel size was part of the panel so a 24 inch slab would have more pixels than a 23 inch slab. Both monitors have the same resolution.
I also asked how Dell claims greater contrast ratio and brightness (800:1 and 300cd/m2 on the 20 inch) than the Apple? Either someone's lying, or they aren't using identical parts.
edit: BTW, I'm just asking some simple questions trying to clear up my own confusion, there's no need to be a prick
umm no neither is lying. They both are using the same panel but DIFFERENT backlights. Dell back lights are brighter so it allows for a larger contrast ratio and more cd/m2
edit: The panel is pretty much just a color filter. It takes the white light from the back light and filters it colors for what you see on the screen (it more complex than that but it is the simplest way to explain it)
jared1988
Apr 6, 08:37 PM
Jared1988,
where did you get those? Did you make them?
My mom and I would love some!
We already have those rubber bracelets but we have very tiny wrists.
couple places to get stickers
i got mine here
http://forjapan.bigcartel.com/
this guy is making some, i think they look a little cooler. look for the march 16 blog for all the ordering info
http://yuta-akaishi.blogspot.com/
where did you get those? Did you make them?
My mom and I would love some!
We already have those rubber bracelets but we have very tiny wrists.
couple places to get stickers
i got mine here
http://forjapan.bigcartel.com/
this guy is making some, i think they look a little cooler. look for the march 16 blog for all the ordering info
http://yuta-akaishi.blogspot.com/
erratikmind
Mar 17, 08:27 AM
Enjoy your new iPad. Based on your comments, you conscience is clear and unencumbered. Personally, I do not agree nor practice your way of thinking/living. However, to each his/her own methods.
Any means to justify a self serving end . . . Quite sad actually.
When the messenger of Misery comes knocking at your door, it will be of your own doing.
Any means to justify a self serving end . . . Quite sad actually.
When the messenger of Misery comes knocking at your door, it will be of your own doing.
Plutonius
Aug 3, 12:05 PM
We'd be better off with diesels or diesel hybrids. People don't want to admit it, but those are currently our best options IMO.
+1 ....
That will most likely be my next car.
+1 ....
That will most likely be my next car.
leekohler
May 7, 12:44 AM
I'm for gun control as well, but the phrase is so broad as to be almost meaningless. Guns need to be regulated at all times. But the level and manner of regulation are very vexed questions.
I think the notion that fewer guns means less gun crime is true in the absolute sense, but far from the whole story - nor is it linear process.
Guns have never been a practical everyday tool for the vast majority of humanity. However, a lack of practical utility is not in itself a good reason to ban, criminalize, or otherwise restrict legal access to something. Nor is the fact that something is dangerous by itself grounds for bans or criminalization. We are surrounded by dangerous things every day. Seeking to manage risk is far more effective than a policy of trying to simply legislate it away.
Exactly. And this is why I have never understood why my more liberal friends would want to ban guns, but not drugs. It's stupid. Education and regulation are key to managing risk associated with any of these things.
I think the notion that fewer guns means less gun crime is true in the absolute sense, but far from the whole story - nor is it linear process.
Guns have never been a practical everyday tool for the vast majority of humanity. However, a lack of practical utility is not in itself a good reason to ban, criminalize, or otherwise restrict legal access to something. Nor is the fact that something is dangerous by itself grounds for bans or criminalization. We are surrounded by dangerous things every day. Seeking to manage risk is far more effective than a policy of trying to simply legislate it away.
Exactly. And this is why I have never understood why my more liberal friends would want to ban guns, but not drugs. It's stupid. Education and regulation are key to managing risk associated with any of these things.
Sdashiki
Jan 9, 12:38 PM
Keynote Stream Available Live On Cnn Pipeline.
not free?
not free?
chrmjenkins
Dec 13, 07:51 PM
And if you're wrong and it's announced in January? ;)
I don't see that happening. It's just not how Apple works.
I don't see that happening. It's just not how Apple works.
i-unit123
Nov 24, 06:58 PM
apple's canada store is also down...
dethmaShine
Apr 12, 02:42 AM
+1
I've been telling this to people for awhile now...if Microsoft *truly* wants a killer OS, then they're gonna have to do what Apple did a decade ago -
Leave the cruft, even if it breaks stuff for awhile, get RID of the registry (this was a good idea...coming from DOS, and being used in Windows 95), use a Linux or UNIX kernel as the base OS, and make applications self-contained, like Apple's are.
It may be copying, but they've copied everything ELSE, why not copy something that *might* have a shot at making the apps easier to install, and viruses harder to get in?
Besides, the apps were *almost* self-contained back in Windows 3.1 - anyone remember .ini files? If MS had let people keep those, there never would've been much use for a registry to begin with.
Do you really think MS will ever do that?
I've been telling this to people for awhile now...if Microsoft *truly* wants a killer OS, then they're gonna have to do what Apple did a decade ago -
Leave the cruft, even if it breaks stuff for awhile, get RID of the registry (this was a good idea...coming from DOS, and being used in Windows 95), use a Linux or UNIX kernel as the base OS, and make applications self-contained, like Apple's are.
It may be copying, but they've copied everything ELSE, why not copy something that *might* have a shot at making the apps easier to install, and viruses harder to get in?
Besides, the apps were *almost* self-contained back in Windows 3.1 - anyone remember .ini files? If MS had let people keep those, there never would've been much use for a registry to begin with.
Do you really think MS will ever do that?
JML42691
Apr 23, 07:34 PM
If I'm honest I don't really like it, it's an interesting idea certainly but as long as downvoted posts aren't hidden or collapsed eventually once they reach a certain amount of downvotes I think it will be okay, because it won't change the way threads are displayed or how/if people speak their mind.
Very much agreed.
And not sure if it has been suggested/discussed yet, but I think a "+" should be included for the positively rated posts as well, not really sure why but I think it would look nicer and more balanced.
This setup on a post by post basis works really well, much better than an overall reputation system like other forums use where one bad post/thread can kill your reputation.
Very much agreed.
And not sure if it has been suggested/discussed yet, but I think a "+" should be included for the positively rated posts as well, not really sure why but I think it would look nicer and more balanced.
This setup on a post by post basis works really well, much better than an overall reputation system like other forums use where one bad post/thread can kill your reputation.
supmango
Apr 15, 03:21 PM
Seeing as that it doesn't have any place for the antenna (like the black area towards the top of the 3G iPad), i'm very skeptical with this picture.
I agree to be skeptical, but the antenna could have access through the front of the iphone. It does not necessarily have to be through the back shell.
I agree to be skeptical, but the antenna could have access through the front of the iphone. It does not necessarily have to be through the back shell.
Korivak
Oct 3, 09:56 PM
I think a lot of people are setting themselves up to be disappointed.
People have been talking about the iPhone for literally years now. And you never know - it might happen. But I think it's more likely that iPods will keep on being iPods. This is the product that hasn't ever added something as simple as an FM tuner, and the reason that they haven't is that it's more parts, more menu items, higher cost and something that only a very few feature addicts care about. Everyone and there uncle already has a cell phone, and a significant percentage of people already have an iPod - and most of them aren't about to throw away hundreds of dollars worth of techie toys that work perfectly to spend hundreds more on something that does the exact same things. Think back to the iPod Photos. Neat idea, a whole new major feature...and the only one that sold well was the one with the larger hard drive. Pretty much everyone thought it was cool, and then ignored it and bought the less expensive monochrome iPod (unless they happened to have 60 GBs of music). Maybe if the iPod was able to add cell support cheaply enough that it was a standard feature across the entire line (like the eventual iPod with Colour Screen), then it would sell - but that's a big engineering and manufacturing challenge for a feature not everyone's going to use (unlike colour album art, which you can't really help but enjoy). Hell, the amount of negotiation it would take to get iPhones working on different networks all around the world (a bit more of a localization issue than just translation and a standard USB interface) would be a nightmare, and probably be better spent getting more music, tv shows and movies.
And a "real" video iPod? I'm content with the current "fake" iPod with Video. Widescreen, larger screen, touch screen, wireless...it's all going to cost money and battery life. If you really want a "real" video iPod, get a Zune when it comes out. Microsoft, sweethearts that they are, will sell it to you at a loss because they don't have to worry about silly and mundane things like profit. But you can't plug it in to your Mac or import your iTMS music to it. Eventually, Apple will figure out a way to improve the iPod and still make a profit, and at that point, they'll release the - say it with me - the iPod. Until then, you can have your choice of the iPod, or not-an-iPod.
Also, if Steve Jobs were to retire, all he'd do all day would be hang out at Apple and give passionate speeches about Apple products. Basically, exactly what he does now.
People have been talking about the iPhone for literally years now. And you never know - it might happen. But I think it's more likely that iPods will keep on being iPods. This is the product that hasn't ever added something as simple as an FM tuner, and the reason that they haven't is that it's more parts, more menu items, higher cost and something that only a very few feature addicts care about. Everyone and there uncle already has a cell phone, and a significant percentage of people already have an iPod - and most of them aren't about to throw away hundreds of dollars worth of techie toys that work perfectly to spend hundreds more on something that does the exact same things. Think back to the iPod Photos. Neat idea, a whole new major feature...and the only one that sold well was the one with the larger hard drive. Pretty much everyone thought it was cool, and then ignored it and bought the less expensive monochrome iPod (unless they happened to have 60 GBs of music). Maybe if the iPod was able to add cell support cheaply enough that it was a standard feature across the entire line (like the eventual iPod with Colour Screen), then it would sell - but that's a big engineering and manufacturing challenge for a feature not everyone's going to use (unlike colour album art, which you can't really help but enjoy). Hell, the amount of negotiation it would take to get iPhones working on different networks all around the world (a bit more of a localization issue than just translation and a standard USB interface) would be a nightmare, and probably be better spent getting more music, tv shows and movies.
And a "real" video iPod? I'm content with the current "fake" iPod with Video. Widescreen, larger screen, touch screen, wireless...it's all going to cost money and battery life. If you really want a "real" video iPod, get a Zune when it comes out. Microsoft, sweethearts that they are, will sell it to you at a loss because they don't have to worry about silly and mundane things like profit. But you can't plug it in to your Mac or import your iTMS music to it. Eventually, Apple will figure out a way to improve the iPod and still make a profit, and at that point, they'll release the - say it with me - the iPod. Until then, you can have your choice of the iPod, or not-an-iPod.
Also, if Steve Jobs were to retire, all he'd do all day would be hang out at Apple and give passionate speeches about Apple products. Basically, exactly what he does now.
MBHockey
Jan 9, 02:08 PM
Stupid news ticker gave it away. That's busch league.:(
No comments:
Post a Comment