Small White Car
May 4, 02:47 PM
Putting it on the Mac App Store raises an interesting issue about licencing - they said that purchases could be used on any Mac that you use.
That opens them up to a lot of abuse.
How so?
The current method is "the OS DVD you buy can be used anywhere, as often as you like, forever."
How could it be worse than that?
That opens them up to a lot of abuse.
How so?
The current method is "the OS DVD you buy can be used anywhere, as often as you like, forever."
How could it be worse than that?
alfonsog
Mar 28, 10:00 AM
I think the iPhone 4 is still the easiest to use and best phone. My friend has an evo and I think it is too big and his is always crashing. Even if they release an iPhone 5 I might just keep the 4 until the 4g/lte/wimax whatever it is comes out unless mine is lost/stolen/broken.
I really can't think of anything they can do to it other than that; a faster processor or memory doesn't matter to me because I don't really play many games, better camera doesn't matter because I don't take many pics, 3D screen on small display seems like a gimmick, when I have a 3dtv. Maybe there will be something surprising but if my phone was lost/stolen/broken today I would go get an iPhone 4 again.
I really can't think of anything they can do to it other than that; a faster processor or memory doesn't matter to me because I don't really play many games, better camera doesn't matter because I don't take many pics, 3D screen on small display seems like a gimmick, when I have a 3dtv. Maybe there will be something surprising but if my phone was lost/stolen/broken today I would go get an iPhone 4 again.
MrCrowbar
Nov 23, 11:40 AM
You own Apple do you? My! You've kept a very low profile!
OMG STEVE IS HERE!!!
Besides that he probably is, good one geese. :p
OMG STEVE IS HERE!!!
Besides that he probably is, good one geese. :p
mattnotis
Apr 20, 01:49 PM
I honestly don't understand where some people get their logic from.
I just skimmed through this thread and i saw posts like "The next iPhone will be an iPhne 4S/iPad 2 type upgrade, so it won't be big". Or "the next iPhone should be called iPhone 4GS or iPhone 4S, because it won't be a big upgrade".
I'm sorry but a Dual Core processor itself makes it a huge upgrade. The iPhone 3GS was the biggest upgrade internally, the iPhone 4 has more RAM.
Don't judge a book by it's cover.
Btw, why would Apple go back to messing up with their names? iPhone 3G was almost the exact same as the Original iPhone, except it had 3G functionalities. So they had to emphasize on "3G", hence the name.
In a marketing stance, it didn't make sense for Apple to go from iPhone 3G to iPhone 3, people want to see improvements not a removal of a letter.
And now finally they came back to the numerical way of naming the iPhone, and i think it'll stay just like that. It makes no sense for Apple to mess it up.
Otherwise the iPad 2 according to some people here should've been called "iPad 1S" :rolleyes:
This should make sense:
iPhone = iPhone 1
iPhone 3G = iPhone 2
iPhone 3GS = iPhone 3
iPhone 4 = iPhone 4
iPhone 5 = iPhone 5
Makes sense? Now how messed up would this be..
iPhone 4 = iPhone 4
iPhone 4S = iPhone 5
iPhone 5 = iPhone 6
In other words, don't undermine the iPhone 5. Due to the leak of the 'prototype' iPhone 4 last year, Apple has been very strict with their next device, by this time last year we knew a lot about the iPhone 4.
So we can only wait until a date closer to September (from what it seems), to see the actual features of the phone.
Keep in mind guys, Apple is going to add things to make current iPhone 4 owners upgrade, it's all marketing.
They don't have to do squat really. They can just call it the iPhone 5 and people would still buy it if it only had a slightly better camera in it.
I just skimmed through this thread and i saw posts like "The next iPhone will be an iPhne 4S/iPad 2 type upgrade, so it won't be big". Or "the next iPhone should be called iPhone 4GS or iPhone 4S, because it won't be a big upgrade".
I'm sorry but a Dual Core processor itself makes it a huge upgrade. The iPhone 3GS was the biggest upgrade internally, the iPhone 4 has more RAM.
Don't judge a book by it's cover.
Btw, why would Apple go back to messing up with their names? iPhone 3G was almost the exact same as the Original iPhone, except it had 3G functionalities. So they had to emphasize on "3G", hence the name.
In a marketing stance, it didn't make sense for Apple to go from iPhone 3G to iPhone 3, people want to see improvements not a removal of a letter.
And now finally they came back to the numerical way of naming the iPhone, and i think it'll stay just like that. It makes no sense for Apple to mess it up.
Otherwise the iPad 2 according to some people here should've been called "iPad 1S" :rolleyes:
This should make sense:
iPhone = iPhone 1
iPhone 3G = iPhone 2
iPhone 3GS = iPhone 3
iPhone 4 = iPhone 4
iPhone 5 = iPhone 5
Makes sense? Now how messed up would this be..
iPhone 4 = iPhone 4
iPhone 4S = iPhone 5
iPhone 5 = iPhone 6
In other words, don't undermine the iPhone 5. Due to the leak of the 'prototype' iPhone 4 last year, Apple has been very strict with their next device, by this time last year we knew a lot about the iPhone 4.
So we can only wait until a date closer to September (from what it seems), to see the actual features of the phone.
Keep in mind guys, Apple is going to add things to make current iPhone 4 owners upgrade, it's all marketing.
They don't have to do squat really. They can just call it the iPhone 5 and people would still buy it if it only had a slightly better camera in it.
Maury
Mar 31, 09:16 AM
I had a nasty feeling then it would mark the decline of Apples great computers & here we are.
Yes, here we are, with the best computer lineup ever, best sales ever, and best OS ever.
The sky is falling!
Yes, here we are, with the best computer lineup ever, best sales ever, and best OS ever.
The sky is falling!
DocNYz
Nov 2, 03:37 PM
We use Sophos at work and love it! Can't wait to start using it at home too.
just out of curiosity, what type of work?
just out of curiosity, what type of work?
Spooner83
Apr 26, 03:37 PM
Android is winning 'cause it's cheaper than apple, which is from the recession, people want cheap when they both do the same with a few minor exceptions.
FarmerBob
Nov 22, 04:52 AM
Just because Palm thinks it's that hard to make a phone doesn't necessarily mean that Apple would have had the same difficulties.
Apple can't make a proper OS much less a working phone. Get real. They have a ton of really good patents, as per all the latest leaks, but it will be a very long time before we see, if at all, them all together in the iPhone we would expect from Apple.
And Cingular is long out of the picture. They went elsewhere.
Also having been part of the cellular revolution, I know full well that the individual carriers will want the operations software of the "iPhone" contoured to their liking so much that it will defeat the purpose of the piece. Over the years many manufacturers have pulled phones from carriers because the level of bastardization of the phone software that the carrier required messed up the phone so much that the phone maker didn't want to be blamed for an inferior product. In the US there is no such thing as a truly accepted fully operational unlocked unit. Elsewhere in the world that is mostly how you buy a phone. Phone first, then a carrier. Not the other way around.
Apple can't make a proper OS much less a working phone. Get real. They have a ton of really good patents, as per all the latest leaks, but it will be a very long time before we see, if at all, them all together in the iPhone we would expect from Apple.
And Cingular is long out of the picture. They went elsewhere.
Also having been part of the cellular revolution, I know full well that the individual carriers will want the operations software of the "iPhone" contoured to their liking so much that it will defeat the purpose of the piece. Over the years many manufacturers have pulled phones from carriers because the level of bastardization of the phone software that the carrier required messed up the phone so much that the phone maker didn't want to be blamed for an inferior product. In the US there is no such thing as a truly accepted fully operational unlocked unit. Elsewhere in the world that is mostly how you buy a phone. Phone first, then a carrier. Not the other way around.
Detlev
Aug 4, 09:59 AM
Hardly Apple's fault. Apple has managed to transition all it's apps - Adobe is certainly dragging their collective feet.
Afterall it's just a couple lines of code. :D
Afterall it's just a couple lines of code. :D
Kilamite
May 4, 02:44 PM
How would one do a "complete fresh reinstall" by this method? Or will we be able to burn to a disc/USB key?
wclyffe
Jan 28, 07:28 PM
I purchased the TOMTOM app early on and paid $99 for it. One week later, I found it posted in the App Store for $49.99 and today, a couple of weeks after that, the price is $59.99. I have searched the App Store site, iTunes Store AND the Apple site and do not understand how to find a Customer Service Link to ask about a refund for the difference in price. Does anyone know how to reach Customer Service for the APP Store? Thanks in advance...
Yeah, they don't make it easy.
Go to the iTunes store and click on your account name in the upper right, put in your password and log into your account (View Account). Then half way down the page is a button called Purchase History, hit that and find the TomTom app you bought. You'll see a little arrow to the left of it. Click that and report a problem to start the process.
Yeah, they don't make it easy.
Go to the iTunes store and click on your account name in the upper right, put in your password and log into your account (View Account). Then half way down the page is a button called Purchase History, hit that and find the TomTom app you bought. You'll see a little arrow to the left of it. Click that and report a problem to start the process.
emotion
Aug 2, 11:00 AM
Apple's been so boring this year, with a bluetooth might mouse just about the most exciting release thus far...
You're kidding right...MBP, MB and Mac Minis have all come out this year!
You're kidding right...MBP, MB and Mac Minis have all come out this year!
CalBoy
May 3, 03:39 PM
I see no reason why 99, 99.5, and 100 are easier to track than 37.2, 37.5, and 37.7. As you said, we accept body temp to be 98.6 and 37.0 in Celsius. If decimals are difficult to remember, then clearly we should pick the scale that represents normal body temp as an integer, right? ;)
It doesn't matter what normal body temperature is because that's not what people are looking for when they take a temperature; they're looking for what's not normal. If it can be helped, the number one is seeking should be as flat as possible.
There is a distinctive quality about 100 that is special. It represents an additional place value and is a line of demarcation for most people. For a scientist or professional, the numbers seem the same (each with 3 digits ending in the tenths place), but to the lay user they are very different. The average person doesn't know what significant digits are or when rounding is appropriate. It's far more likely that someone will falsely remember "37.2" as "37" than they will "99" as "98.6." Even if they do make an error and think of 98.6 as 99, it is an error on the side of caution (because presumably they will take their child to the doctor or at least call in).
I realize this makes me seem like I put people in low regard, but the fact is that most things designed for common use are meant to be idiot-proof. Redundancies and warnings are hard to miss in such designs, and on a temperature scale, one that makes 100 "dangerous" is very practical and effective. You have to keep in mind that this scale is going to be used by the illiterate, functionally illiterate, the negligent, the careless, the sloppy, and the hurried.
The importance of additional digits finds its way into many facets of life, including advertising and pricing. It essentially the only reason why everything is sold at intervals of "xx.99" instead of a flat price point. Marketers have long determined that if they were to round up to the nearest whole number, it would make the price seem disproportionately larger. The same "trick" is being used by the Fahrenheit scale; the presence of the additional digit makes people more alarmed at the appropriate time.
Perhaps your set of measuring cups is the additional piece of equipment. Indeed you wouldn't need them. For a recipe in SI, the only items you would need are an electronic balance, graduating measuring "cup," and a graduated cylinder. No series of cups or spoons required (although, they do of course come in metric for those so inclined).
Of course any amateur baker has at least a few cups of both wet and dry so they can keep ingredients separated but measured when they need to be added in a precise order. It just isn't practical to bake with 3 measuring devices and a scale (which, let's be real here, would cost 5 times as much as a set of measuring cups).
This also relies on having recipes with written weights as opposed to volumes. It would also be problematic because you'd make people relearn common measurements for the metric beaker because they couldn't have their cups (ie I know 1 egg is half a cup, so it's easy to put half an egg in a recipe-I would have to do milimeter devision to figure this out for a metric recipe even though there's a perfectly good standard device for it).
It might seem that way to you, but the majority of the world uses weight to measure dry ingredients. For them it's just as easy.
Sure when you have a commercial quantity (which is also how companies bake in bulk-by weight), but not when you're making a dozen muffins or cupcakes. The smaller the quantity, the worse off you are with weighing each ingredient in terms of efficiency.
Why would you need alternative names? A recipe would call for "30ml" of any given liquid. There's no need to call it anything else.
So what would you call 500ml of beer at a bar? Would everyone refer to the spoon at the dinner table as "the 30?" The naming convention isn't going to disappear just because measurements are given in metric. Or are you saying that the naming convention should disappear and numbers used exclusively in their stead?
Well, no one would ask for a 237ml vessel because that's an arbitrary number based on a different system of units. But if you wanted, yes, you could measure that amount in a graduated measuring cup (or weigh it on your balance).
In that case, what would I call 1 cup of a drink? Even if it is made flat at 200, 250, or 300ml, what would be the name? I think by and large it would still be called a cup. In that case you aren't really accomplishing much because people are going to refer to it as they will and the metric quantity wouldn't really do anything because it's not something that people usually divide or multiply by 10 very often in daily life.
I suspect people would call it a "quarter liter," much like I would say "quarter gallon."
No, that would be 1/4 of a liter, not 4 liters. I'm assuming that without gallons, the most closely analogous metric quantity would be 4 liters. What would be the marketing term for this? The shorthand name that would allow people to express a quantity without referring to another number?
And no, you wouldn't call 500ml a "pint" because, well, why would you? :confused:
Well I'm assuming that beer would have to be served in metric quantities, and a pint is known the world over as a beer. You can't really expect the name to go out of use just because the quantity has changed by a factor of about 25ml.
...But countries using SI do call 500ml a demi-liter ("demi" meaning "half").
Somehow I don't see that becoming popular pub lingo...
This is the case with Si units as well. 500, 250, 125, 75, etc. Though SI units can also be divided by any number you wish. Want to make 1/5 of the recipe? ...Just divide all the numbers by five.
Except you can't divide the servings people usually take for themselves very easily by 2, 4, 8, or 16. An eighth of 300ml (a hypothetical metric cup), for example, is a decimal. It's not very probable that if someone was to describe how much cream they added to their coffee they'd describe it as "37.5ml." It's more likely that they'll say "1/4 of x" or "2 of y." This is how the standard system was born; people took everyday quantities (often times as random as fists, feet, and gulps) and over time standardized them.
Every standard unit conforms to a value we are likely to see to this day (a man's foot is still about 12 inches, a tablespoon is about one bite, etc). Granted it's not scientific, but it's not meant to be. It's meant to be practical to describe everyday units, much like "lion" is not the full scientific name for panthera leo. One naming scheme makes sense for one application and another makes sense for a very different application. I whole heartedly agree that for scientific, industrial, and official uses metric is the way to go, but it is not the way to go for lay people. People are not scientists. They should use the measuring schemes that are practical for the things in their lives.
Not that OS X Panthera Leo doesn't have a nice ring to it, of course. ;)
No, but it is onerous for kids to learn SI units, which is a mandatory skill in this global world. Like I said, why teach kids two units of measure if one will suffice?
It's onerous to learn how to multiply and divide by 10 + 3 root words? :confused: Besides, so many things in our daily lives have both unit scales. My ruler has inches and cm and mm. Bathroom scales have pounds and kg. Even measuring cups have ml written on them.
You could be right for international commerce where values have to be recalculated just for the US, but like I said, I think those things should be converted. I don't really care if I buy a 25 gram candy bar as opposed to a 1 ounce candy bar or a 350ml can of soda.
Perhaps true, but just because you switch to metric, doesn't mean you need to stop using tablespoons and teaspoons for measurements. It's all an approximation anyway, since there are far more than 2 different spoon sizes, and many of them look like they're pretty much equal in size to a tablespoon.
I'm sorry, but which tablespoons do you use that aren't tablespoons? The measuring spoons most people have at home for baking are very precise and have the fractions clearly marked on them.
Other than that, there's a teaspoon, tablespoon, and serving spoon (which you wouldn't use as a measurement). The sizes are very different for each of those and I don't think anyone who saw them side by side could confuse them.
So if you're cooking, do what everyone else does with their spoons; if you need a tablespoon, grab the big-ish one and estimate. If you needed more precision than that, why wouldn't you use ml? :confused:
Because it's a heck of a lot easier to think, "I need one xspoon of secret ingredient" than it is to think, "I need xml of secret ingredient." You think like a scientist (because you are one). Most people aren't. That's who the teaspoons and tablespoons are for.
It doesn't matter what normal body temperature is because that's not what people are looking for when they take a temperature; they're looking for what's not normal. If it can be helped, the number one is seeking should be as flat as possible.
There is a distinctive quality about 100 that is special. It represents an additional place value and is a line of demarcation for most people. For a scientist or professional, the numbers seem the same (each with 3 digits ending in the tenths place), but to the lay user they are very different. The average person doesn't know what significant digits are or when rounding is appropriate. It's far more likely that someone will falsely remember "37.2" as "37" than they will "99" as "98.6." Even if they do make an error and think of 98.6 as 99, it is an error on the side of caution (because presumably they will take their child to the doctor or at least call in).
I realize this makes me seem like I put people in low regard, but the fact is that most things designed for common use are meant to be idiot-proof. Redundancies and warnings are hard to miss in such designs, and on a temperature scale, one that makes 100 "dangerous" is very practical and effective. You have to keep in mind that this scale is going to be used by the illiterate, functionally illiterate, the negligent, the careless, the sloppy, and the hurried.
The importance of additional digits finds its way into many facets of life, including advertising and pricing. It essentially the only reason why everything is sold at intervals of "xx.99" instead of a flat price point. Marketers have long determined that if they were to round up to the nearest whole number, it would make the price seem disproportionately larger. The same "trick" is being used by the Fahrenheit scale; the presence of the additional digit makes people more alarmed at the appropriate time.
Perhaps your set of measuring cups is the additional piece of equipment. Indeed you wouldn't need them. For a recipe in SI, the only items you would need are an electronic balance, graduating measuring "cup," and a graduated cylinder. No series of cups or spoons required (although, they do of course come in metric for those so inclined).
Of course any amateur baker has at least a few cups of both wet and dry so they can keep ingredients separated but measured when they need to be added in a precise order. It just isn't practical to bake with 3 measuring devices and a scale (which, let's be real here, would cost 5 times as much as a set of measuring cups).
This also relies on having recipes with written weights as opposed to volumes. It would also be problematic because you'd make people relearn common measurements for the metric beaker because they couldn't have their cups (ie I know 1 egg is half a cup, so it's easy to put half an egg in a recipe-I would have to do milimeter devision to figure this out for a metric recipe even though there's a perfectly good standard device for it).
It might seem that way to you, but the majority of the world uses weight to measure dry ingredients. For them it's just as easy.
Sure when you have a commercial quantity (which is also how companies bake in bulk-by weight), but not when you're making a dozen muffins or cupcakes. The smaller the quantity, the worse off you are with weighing each ingredient in terms of efficiency.
Why would you need alternative names? A recipe would call for "30ml" of any given liquid. There's no need to call it anything else.
So what would you call 500ml of beer at a bar? Would everyone refer to the spoon at the dinner table as "the 30?" The naming convention isn't going to disappear just because measurements are given in metric. Or are you saying that the naming convention should disappear and numbers used exclusively in their stead?
Well, no one would ask for a 237ml vessel because that's an arbitrary number based on a different system of units. But if you wanted, yes, you could measure that amount in a graduated measuring cup (or weigh it on your balance).
In that case, what would I call 1 cup of a drink? Even if it is made flat at 200, 250, or 300ml, what would be the name? I think by and large it would still be called a cup. In that case you aren't really accomplishing much because people are going to refer to it as they will and the metric quantity wouldn't really do anything because it's not something that people usually divide or multiply by 10 very often in daily life.
I suspect people would call it a "quarter liter," much like I would say "quarter gallon."
No, that would be 1/4 of a liter, not 4 liters. I'm assuming that without gallons, the most closely analogous metric quantity would be 4 liters. What would be the marketing term for this? The shorthand name that would allow people to express a quantity without referring to another number?
And no, you wouldn't call 500ml a "pint" because, well, why would you? :confused:
Well I'm assuming that beer would have to be served in metric quantities, and a pint is known the world over as a beer. You can't really expect the name to go out of use just because the quantity has changed by a factor of about 25ml.
...But countries using SI do call 500ml a demi-liter ("demi" meaning "half").
Somehow I don't see that becoming popular pub lingo...
This is the case with Si units as well. 500, 250, 125, 75, etc. Though SI units can also be divided by any number you wish. Want to make 1/5 of the recipe? ...Just divide all the numbers by five.
Except you can't divide the servings people usually take for themselves very easily by 2, 4, 8, or 16. An eighth of 300ml (a hypothetical metric cup), for example, is a decimal. It's not very probable that if someone was to describe how much cream they added to their coffee they'd describe it as "37.5ml." It's more likely that they'll say "1/4 of x" or "2 of y." This is how the standard system was born; people took everyday quantities (often times as random as fists, feet, and gulps) and over time standardized them.
Every standard unit conforms to a value we are likely to see to this day (a man's foot is still about 12 inches, a tablespoon is about one bite, etc). Granted it's not scientific, but it's not meant to be. It's meant to be practical to describe everyday units, much like "lion" is not the full scientific name for panthera leo. One naming scheme makes sense for one application and another makes sense for a very different application. I whole heartedly agree that for scientific, industrial, and official uses metric is the way to go, but it is not the way to go for lay people. People are not scientists. They should use the measuring schemes that are practical for the things in their lives.
Not that OS X Panthera Leo doesn't have a nice ring to it, of course. ;)
No, but it is onerous for kids to learn SI units, which is a mandatory skill in this global world. Like I said, why teach kids two units of measure if one will suffice?
It's onerous to learn how to multiply and divide by 10 + 3 root words? :confused: Besides, so many things in our daily lives have both unit scales. My ruler has inches and cm and mm. Bathroom scales have pounds and kg. Even measuring cups have ml written on them.
You could be right for international commerce where values have to be recalculated just for the US, but like I said, I think those things should be converted. I don't really care if I buy a 25 gram candy bar as opposed to a 1 ounce candy bar or a 350ml can of soda.
Perhaps true, but just because you switch to metric, doesn't mean you need to stop using tablespoons and teaspoons for measurements. It's all an approximation anyway, since there are far more than 2 different spoon sizes, and many of them look like they're pretty much equal in size to a tablespoon.
I'm sorry, but which tablespoons do you use that aren't tablespoons? The measuring spoons most people have at home for baking are very precise and have the fractions clearly marked on them.
Other than that, there's a teaspoon, tablespoon, and serving spoon (which you wouldn't use as a measurement). The sizes are very different for each of those and I don't think anyone who saw them side by side could confuse them.
So if you're cooking, do what everyone else does with their spoons; if you need a tablespoon, grab the big-ish one and estimate. If you needed more precision than that, why wouldn't you use ml? :confused:
Because it's a heck of a lot easier to think, "I need one xspoon of secret ingredient" than it is to think, "I need xml of secret ingredient." You think like a scientist (because you are one). Most people aren't. That's who the teaspoons and tablespoons are for.
crees!
Aug 2, 11:00 AM
Give us something real and with substance. These analysts... pfffft.
MacRumors... you mean you haven't uncovered anything.. anything worthly of posting besides the crap that has been spewn out over the past few months?
MacRumors... you mean you haven't uncovered anything.. anything worthly of posting besides the crap that has been spewn out over the past few months?
toughboy
Nov 26, 04:46 PM
Well whatever Apple puts inside that 'tablet' thing, I want it to be named as 'Newton'.. That is the name the product deserves, something with respect to Apple's own history..
We should be done with the cheap code-names like iTV and etc.. Newton is 'Apple-ish' enough...
For the spec side, all I want is a machine running a croped version of Mac OSX that can be used as a GSM cellphone and can surf internet via WiFi.. We already got iPod for music, so we dont need tens of gigabytes of storage.. 4-8gb is fair enough for a device like this..
We should be done with the cheap code-names like iTV and etc.. Newton is 'Apple-ish' enough...
For the spec side, all I want is a machine running a croped version of Mac OSX that can be used as a GSM cellphone and can surf internet via WiFi.. We already got iPod for music, so we dont need tens of gigabytes of storage.. 4-8gb is fair enough for a device like this..
mrgstiffler
Mar 30, 05:53 PM
So I guess that Gold Master rumor was wrong.
Everyone who used the first developer preview knew that rumor was flat wrong.
Everyone who used the first developer preview knew that rumor was flat wrong.
Kilamite
Apr 9, 08:25 PM
Exactly.
To avoid the 'implied' multiplication, it should be shown as below.
The answer is then obviously "2".
2 to the power of (9+3) is not the same as 2 x (9+3).
To avoid the 'implied' multiplication, it should be shown as below.
The answer is then obviously "2".
2 to the power of (9+3) is not the same as 2 x (9+3).
Thunderhawks
Apr 6, 05:50 PM
An orgy of Androids? That sounds scary. Almost as scary as a bunch of Apples having an orgy.
The latter makes apple sauce, which to me is more a peel ing:-)
The latter makes apple sauce, which to me is more a peel ing:-)
1080p
Apr 7, 09:33 AM
Money talks... :apple:
kirk26
Apr 5, 02:04 PM
Only thing more shaky than a JB iPhone is a POS Scion. They deserve each other.
Nothing wrong with a Scion there, buddy. ;)
Nothing wrong with a Scion there, buddy. ;)
rickdollar
May 7, 05:09 PM
I for one use it ALL the time. When you have more than one device (multiple macs, iphone), it's SO nice to have them sync wirelessly, immediately, and without having to login every time, on the native apps. iCal, Contacts, Safari links: I am a very frequent user of the mobileme syncing on all of these.
Me, too. Love it for that.
Me, too. Love it for that.
mdgm
May 6, 01:52 AM
If Apple moves their Macs away from Intel that'll encourage a lot of Mac users including myself to consider switching to buying Windows machines. Boot Camp is an important Mac feature and Intel processors are the best.
bedifferent
Mar 30, 08:12 PM
Given that Apple sold over 4 million Macs last quarter, that must equate to around $7 billion in revenue. Macs still make up around a quarter of Apples revenue, so while iPhones might be where the most money is coming in, Apple can't ignore $7 billion per quarter...
Very true but those Macs are portables, not iMacs and certainly not the overpriced and overpowered Xeon server driven Mac Pro's that replaced the affordable and (at the time) upgradeable G4's and G5's we all used for our work. What happened to the dedicated 20/23/30" LCD CCFL Apple Cinema Display line, or even the Apple Studio Display line before them? Replaced with ONE 27" LED LCD based off the 27" iMac (basically an iMac without a computer). Times change, I get it, but why do they have to leave us power users who supported them before the iPod and need Apple systems for work behind? It's costing us thousands to switch to Windows systems and applications such as Avid and Premiere Pro/Adobe Suites.
IDevices are amazing, but please, don't make the already dwindling prosumers systems become iOS systems for the average Joe. There are a lot of people on here that are new comers from Apple's iPod/iPhone influx that don't know/understand what this is doing to those who really need OS X and affordable mid-towers and top notch displays again… and once built in California, now "designed" in California. Man, sad times for us and the states on that change...
Very true but those Macs are portables, not iMacs and certainly not the overpriced and overpowered Xeon server driven Mac Pro's that replaced the affordable and (at the time) upgradeable G4's and G5's we all used for our work. What happened to the dedicated 20/23/30" LCD CCFL Apple Cinema Display line, or even the Apple Studio Display line before them? Replaced with ONE 27" LED LCD based off the 27" iMac (basically an iMac without a computer). Times change, I get it, but why do they have to leave us power users who supported them before the iPod and need Apple systems for work behind? It's costing us thousands to switch to Windows systems and applications such as Avid and Premiere Pro/Adobe Suites.
IDevices are amazing, but please, don't make the already dwindling prosumers systems become iOS systems for the average Joe. There are a lot of people on here that are new comers from Apple's iPod/iPhone influx that don't know/understand what this is doing to those who really need OS X and affordable mid-towers and top notch displays again… and once built in California, now "designed" in California. Man, sad times for us and the states on that change...
thisisahughes
Apr 7, 07:44 PM
Money talks... :apple:
everyday.
everyday.
No comments:
Post a Comment