GFLPraxis
Jul 20, 12:29 PM
Then all we're looking at is cranking up the current 180 watt power supply. I remember my iMac G5 2.0 GHz hitting 75-76º C at 100% load. The Rev. C iMac G5 was whisper quiet compared to my machine using the same 970FX chip. If Conroe doesn't break 45° C then it's not a thermal nightmare to put into the iMac. It's just a pain to power.
I hope nobody's brought this up because I skipped a few pages of the thread, but...
I've noticed some things with regards to pricing.
The current 1.86 GHz Yonah in the 17" iMac costs $294.
The new 2 GHz Merom costs $294.
A 2.16 GHz Merom costs $423.
A 2.16 GHz Conroe costs $224.
A 2.16 GHz Conroe is a full $70 cheaper than the 1.86 GHz Yonah in the iMac today and $70 cheaper than the 2 GHz Merom Apple would use if they went with Merom. This would allow either higher profit margins or a price drop (or they could put the extra money into something else).
If there is a power supply problem- I'm sure it won't cost $70 to increase the power supply capacity a little.
If, instead, there is both a heat and power issue- a 2.16 GHz Conroe underclocked to 2 GHz is still $70 cheaper than a 2 GHz Merom and probably outperforms it, and can be advertised as a desktop processor and completes Apple's lineup.
I'm strongly hoping for Conroe in an iMac. I also hope the iMac gets updated at WWDC. I really don't want to wait anylonger to make the purchase, and the back to school deal expires in September two days after MacExpo Paris.
From what's been said, it looks like Conroe doesn't run too hot, it just sucks too much power. However, it still saves a lot of money to use, a little which can be put in to increasing the power supply, and the rest is pure profit for Apple. It also provides a huge leap in performance.
Apple can bump the iMac from 1.86/2 GHz to 2.16/2.4 GHz. The 2.4 GHz Conroe costs $107 less than the 2 GHz Yonah in the current 20" iMac, which could even spell a price drop, additional features, or just a huge Apple profit margin.
I hope nobody's brought this up because I skipped a few pages of the thread, but...
I've noticed some things with regards to pricing.
The current 1.86 GHz Yonah in the 17" iMac costs $294.
The new 2 GHz Merom costs $294.
A 2.16 GHz Merom costs $423.
A 2.16 GHz Conroe costs $224.
A 2.16 GHz Conroe is a full $70 cheaper than the 1.86 GHz Yonah in the iMac today and $70 cheaper than the 2 GHz Merom Apple would use if they went with Merom. This would allow either higher profit margins or a price drop (or they could put the extra money into something else).
If there is a power supply problem- I'm sure it won't cost $70 to increase the power supply capacity a little.
If, instead, there is both a heat and power issue- a 2.16 GHz Conroe underclocked to 2 GHz is still $70 cheaper than a 2 GHz Merom and probably outperforms it, and can be advertised as a desktop processor and completes Apple's lineup.
I'm strongly hoping for Conroe in an iMac. I also hope the iMac gets updated at WWDC. I really don't want to wait anylonger to make the purchase, and the back to school deal expires in September two days after MacExpo Paris.
From what's been said, it looks like Conroe doesn't run too hot, it just sucks too much power. However, it still saves a lot of money to use, a little which can be put in to increasing the power supply, and the rest is pure profit for Apple. It also provides a huge leap in performance.
Apple can bump the iMac from 1.86/2 GHz to 2.16/2.4 GHz. The 2.4 GHz Conroe costs $107 less than the 2 GHz Yonah in the current 20" iMac, which could even spell a price drop, additional features, or just a huge Apple profit margin.
balamw
Sep 5, 04:43 PM
And DVD's don't have ads even if you rent them (other than trailers, which is pretty standard).
The recent Peter Jackson version of King Kong had a "special feature" that was little else but an ad for the VW Touareg. This kind of prouct-placement/cross-marketing is becoming more prevalent, and plenty of Disney movies I have bought recently come with inserts in the DVD case that are ads for minivans, junk food, books, etc... etc...
B
The recent Peter Jackson version of King Kong had a "special feature" that was little else but an ad for the VW Touareg. This kind of prouct-placement/cross-marketing is becoming more prevalent, and plenty of Disney movies I have bought recently come with inserts in the DVD case that are ads for minivans, junk food, books, etc... etc...
B
JAT
Mar 30, 12:02 PM
Yes, but that doesn't matter. The word Windows is no generic IT word, while app(lication) is. That's the difference.
"Apple" can't be used to trademark a fruit, but it can be used to trademark a computer. "Windows" can't be used to trademark "windows of a house" but it can be for an operating system. "App store" can be trademarked for a brothel but not for a store that sells computer applications.
One, windows is a generic IT word. Yes, it is. That's WHY M$ named it Windows, because it was a term that described what you see on screen. Personally, I was annoyed when they called it that for their 2bit crap OS shell. Two, that doesn't matter today, M$ is not going after people for usage of "windows". Three, Apple can certainly attempt to trademark a term. That's why we have trademarks. All these arguments are circular. "You can't because you can't." Silly.
Yeah -- makes you wonder why the American Revolution ever happened. We replaced somebody who ruled by birthright with somebody who ruled by the merits of being a better lawyer. I guess you can't win. If only all political leaders could have been like George Washington who hated political parties.
Yes, military rulers have always been so wonderful in human history. :rolleyes:
I'll say it again "App Store" is a generic term, I think everyone should be able to use it.. I hope Apple doesn't win this one.. If someone used "Mac App Store", completely understandable..
See, that's really the point. Apple was the first to use this term. It doesn't matter what letters it uses, it's the combination that is at stake, here. I don't care who wins, they could certainly trademark this no problem. That's what a trademark is, if your term was so strange and unrelated to your industry, you wouldn't need legal backup.
"Apple" can't be used to trademark a fruit, but it can be used to trademark a computer. "Windows" can't be used to trademark "windows of a house" but it can be for an operating system. "App store" can be trademarked for a brothel but not for a store that sells computer applications.
One, windows is a generic IT word. Yes, it is. That's WHY M$ named it Windows, because it was a term that described what you see on screen. Personally, I was annoyed when they called it that for their 2bit crap OS shell. Two, that doesn't matter today, M$ is not going after people for usage of "windows". Three, Apple can certainly attempt to trademark a term. That's why we have trademarks. All these arguments are circular. "You can't because you can't." Silly.
Yeah -- makes you wonder why the American Revolution ever happened. We replaced somebody who ruled by birthright with somebody who ruled by the merits of being a better lawyer. I guess you can't win. If only all political leaders could have been like George Washington who hated political parties.
Yes, military rulers have always been so wonderful in human history. :rolleyes:
I'll say it again "App Store" is a generic term, I think everyone should be able to use it.. I hope Apple doesn't win this one.. If someone used "Mac App Store", completely understandable..
See, that's really the point. Apple was the first to use this term. It doesn't matter what letters it uses, it's the combination that is at stake, here. I don't care who wins, they could certainly trademark this no problem. That's what a trademark is, if your term was so strange and unrelated to your industry, you wouldn't need legal backup.
mcrain
Apr 20, 08:54 AM
Always makes me lol to see someone attribute slavery to the "right". The mysteries of 7th grade history class, revealed for you:
"The Republican Presidential Candidate Abraham Lincoln thought no price was too great for the abolition of slavery and the creation of a society in which a man was not judged by the color of his skin."
"The Democratic Party Platform presented a plan of "Compromise with the South", which ... would be to agree to make permanent the institution of slavery in exchange for an end to the Civil War and restoration of the Union. In other words, the Democratic party was ready to "Sell Out" the enslaved, in order to stop further loss of white lives."
http://www.sonofthesouth.net/democratic-party-platform.htm
"an exclusively partisan Democratic organization in the South" ... "the southern Klan remained Democratic, closely allied with Democratic police, sheriffs, and other functionaries of local government. With continuing disfranchisement of most African Americans and many poor whites, the only political activity took place within the Democratic Party."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan#Political_influence
You are right, but there is a great big asterick. The republicans a long, long time ago were the party that opposed slavery, and the southern democrats were the party more representative of slave owners.
What might have changed since the days of Abe Lincoln? Considering his museum is about 200 steps from where I'm sitting right now, I'll offer an answer. The positions of the two parties shifted when the Republicans adopted the southern strategy.
I find it funny (LOL) whenever Republicans point to Honest Abe as a standard bearer for their party when they turned their backs on what he stood for. If he were alive today, he would be a Democrat, and he would be ashamed of the efforts of his party to divide the nation into those who have vs. those who do not.
Southern Strategy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy)
(edit) So, depending on how you look at it, both arguments are correct. Yesterday's Democrats were responsible for slavery, but todays "right" sounds an awful lot like yesterday's southern Democrats. In other words, the "right" by today's standards would have been yesterday's Democrats.
From a 5 second google search - a different view of the same issue...
I find it extrememely hard to believe that Abe Lincoln would be a Republican today since the Republican Party of the 1860s was a completeley different animal than today's conservative GOP. Even though he was a moderate, his party's base of support was in the Northeast/New England and was made up of former Whigs, Free Soilers, Radical Republicans and abolitionists (i.e., America's first "bleeding-heart liberals"). The Democratic Party was the party of "states rights", wealthy plantation owners and slave-holders, and rather arch-conservative elements.
Abe Lincoln first made a name of himself by speaking out against the Mexican-American War in the Illinois legistlature, as a war that was only meant to expand slavery westward (can you say "ANTI-WAR LIBERAL")
Abe Lincoln was also hated in the South (he didn't recieve a SINGLE VOTE in the South!), was even accused to being half-black, even though he was not as radical as some other Republicans.
"The Republican Presidential Candidate Abraham Lincoln thought no price was too great for the abolition of slavery and the creation of a society in which a man was not judged by the color of his skin."
"The Democratic Party Platform presented a plan of "Compromise with the South", which ... would be to agree to make permanent the institution of slavery in exchange for an end to the Civil War and restoration of the Union. In other words, the Democratic party was ready to "Sell Out" the enslaved, in order to stop further loss of white lives."
http://www.sonofthesouth.net/democratic-party-platform.htm
"an exclusively partisan Democratic organization in the South" ... "the southern Klan remained Democratic, closely allied with Democratic police, sheriffs, and other functionaries of local government. With continuing disfranchisement of most African Americans and many poor whites, the only political activity took place within the Democratic Party."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan#Political_influence
You are right, but there is a great big asterick. The republicans a long, long time ago were the party that opposed slavery, and the southern democrats were the party more representative of slave owners.
What might have changed since the days of Abe Lincoln? Considering his museum is about 200 steps from where I'm sitting right now, I'll offer an answer. The positions of the two parties shifted when the Republicans adopted the southern strategy.
I find it funny (LOL) whenever Republicans point to Honest Abe as a standard bearer for their party when they turned their backs on what he stood for. If he were alive today, he would be a Democrat, and he would be ashamed of the efforts of his party to divide the nation into those who have vs. those who do not.
Southern Strategy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy)
(edit) So, depending on how you look at it, both arguments are correct. Yesterday's Democrats were responsible for slavery, but todays "right" sounds an awful lot like yesterday's southern Democrats. In other words, the "right" by today's standards would have been yesterday's Democrats.
From a 5 second google search - a different view of the same issue...
I find it extrememely hard to believe that Abe Lincoln would be a Republican today since the Republican Party of the 1860s was a completeley different animal than today's conservative GOP. Even though he was a moderate, his party's base of support was in the Northeast/New England and was made up of former Whigs, Free Soilers, Radical Republicans and abolitionists (i.e., America's first "bleeding-heart liberals"). The Democratic Party was the party of "states rights", wealthy plantation owners and slave-holders, and rather arch-conservative elements.
Abe Lincoln first made a name of himself by speaking out against the Mexican-American War in the Illinois legistlature, as a war that was only meant to expand slavery westward (can you say "ANTI-WAR LIBERAL")
Abe Lincoln was also hated in the South (he didn't recieve a SINGLE VOTE in the South!), was even accused to being half-black, even though he was not as radical as some other Republicans.
stoid
Sep 19, 01:31 PM
So, new movies this week? or do we have to wait until next?
Hattig
Mar 29, 12:40 PM
using the keyboard, how quaint
Far faster than using the mouse. Mac OS X is very good at providing keyboard shortcuts, far better than Windows, although that may have changed with Windows 7.
I don't even get the point of your snarky comment. You know damn well that the functions are also available via the menus and right mouse button too.
Far faster than using the mouse. Mac OS X is very good at providing keyboard shortcuts, far better than Windows, although that may have changed with Windows 7.
I don't even get the point of your snarky comment. You know damn well that the functions are also available via the menus and right mouse button too.
LightSpeed1
May 3, 06:41 PM
Dual ports should have been on the notebooks as well.
I agree with this completely.
I agree with this completely.
Scottsdale
Mar 22, 01:42 PM
Please bring back the 24"! 21" - too small. 27" - too big. 24" - just right!
I'm sticking with my 24" Core2Duo until a new 24" model is released.
I actually read somewhere that due to the way LCD panels are manufactured that there are various sizes that can be cut. Supposedly Apple is wasting several inches of panel by having an off size. I think it's possible that the 24" might just make its way back into the lineup as the new low end iMac. However, I think we would hear rumors of that ahead of time. Maybe with the next design change. I think 2012 will be a big year for the return of the Mac. There are rumors of MBP changes, and it seems like Apple could cut down the size of the "chin" and make the iMac look like the 27" LED ACD with just display showing from the front.
Anyways, I have a 27" LED ACD, and from my experience it's too big. I really love the size of it but it's a double edged sword. I found that the 24" was just right, but I would prefer the resolution of the 27" only in 16:10 format in the 24" ACD. I think Apple needs to also go for a 30" for the professionals out there that want bigger. I think a consumer perfect size is probably 24" while pros might want 30" or even larger. I am with you in wanting some better sizes in both iMacs and the ACDs with them. I do find it odd that the only size ACD is 27" while that's bigger and more expensive than most consumers care for, and Apple is all about consumers now.
I'm sticking with my 24" Core2Duo until a new 24" model is released.
I actually read somewhere that due to the way LCD panels are manufactured that there are various sizes that can be cut. Supposedly Apple is wasting several inches of panel by having an off size. I think it's possible that the 24" might just make its way back into the lineup as the new low end iMac. However, I think we would hear rumors of that ahead of time. Maybe with the next design change. I think 2012 will be a big year for the return of the Mac. There are rumors of MBP changes, and it seems like Apple could cut down the size of the "chin" and make the iMac look like the 27" LED ACD with just display showing from the front.
Anyways, I have a 27" LED ACD, and from my experience it's too big. I really love the size of it but it's a double edged sword. I found that the 24" was just right, but I would prefer the resolution of the 27" only in 16:10 format in the 24" ACD. I think Apple needs to also go for a 30" for the professionals out there that want bigger. I think a consumer perfect size is probably 24" while pros might want 30" or even larger. I am with you in wanting some better sizes in both iMacs and the ACDs with them. I do find it odd that the only size ACD is 27" while that's bigger and more expensive than most consumers care for, and Apple is all about consumers now.
Yvan256
Sep 14, 11:42 AM
Any chance we'll see an Apple widescreen H.264/AAC camcorder there? And how about an iPod dock connector/cable to use an iPod for storage to keep the costs down (and sell more iPods)?
drewyboy
Aug 29, 01:34 AM
Me personally, I like how the MBP are, but just give the Al. the black Al. such as the new U2 ipods have on the back. Very sleek and sexy.
elgrecomac
Mar 30, 11:25 AM
He will need to be a 'cunning linguist' to assist Microsoft.
:cool:
:cool:
Macnoviz
Sep 5, 02:28 AM
:confused:
What is this....
www.apple.com/movies
comes up with
Forbidden
You don't have permission to access /movies on this server.
What might this mean
movies.apple.com is where they keep the movies that stream on the site (like the get a mac ads)
you normally can't browse to them, but if you look at the page info using Firefox, you can see on a page where the media is located. That's how you can download those movies withouth getting quicktime pro
What is this....
www.apple.com/movies
comes up with
Forbidden
You don't have permission to access /movies on this server.
What might this mean
movies.apple.com is where they keep the movies that stream on the site (like the get a mac ads)
you normally can't browse to them, but if you look at the page info using Firefox, you can see on a page where the media is located. That's how you can download those movies withouth getting quicktime pro
apfhex
Sep 4, 06:53 PM
Insiders can only presume the device will take up the form of a video-enabled version of Apple's existing AirPort Express wireless base station, which lets users stream their iTunes music tracks from their computers to their home stereo receivers. It also acts as a wireless 802.11 router and printing hub.
This would quite possibly be the best thing ever if it worked well (it would have to at least output 720p, if that's even *possible* over 802.11g/whatever). I've been waiting for a device like that for a rather long time.
This would quite possibly be the best thing ever if it worked well (it would have to at least output 720p, if that's even *possible* over 802.11g/whatever). I've been waiting for a device like that for a rather long time.
124151155
Apr 15, 09:02 AM
It's be a good idea if Thunderbolt was capable of handling USB 3 as well, like the thunderbolt port in the MacBook Pro can also do mini display.
I guess that way it'd at least be used more, but also nobody would be uncertain about getting Thunderbolt because they know even if it is a flop the port is still useful...
I guess that way it'd at least be used more, but also nobody would be uncertain about getting Thunderbolt because they know even if it is a flop the port is still useful...
CQd44
Apr 30, 06:24 PM
I think it will be just as big as USB2 was. Why wouldn't it? I would be surprised if all the PC vendors shipped machines with TB, if history is any indication. Far more Windows PC's were shipped with USB2 than FW. That may change this time around with TB but I doubt it.
My desktop has eSATA and USB 2 built into the case (of course this requires some plugging in on the motherboard itself...) and the motherboard supports firewire.
I think what will probably happen is just switching to USB3 and TB. Seems easiest and the most backward-compatible.
I can't wait to get a USB3 flash drive so my laptop can finally put its USB3 to use :)
My desktop has eSATA and USB 2 built into the case (of course this requires some plugging in on the motherboard itself...) and the motherboard supports firewire.
I think what will probably happen is just switching to USB3 and TB. Seems easiest and the most backward-compatible.
I can't wait to get a USB3 flash drive so my laptop can finally put its USB3 to use :)
AaronEdwards
Apr 20, 12:34 PM
android enthusiast here.
i don't see what the big deal is. so what if Apple is storing your location data.
everyone here is on facebook, exposing their real names, friends, user uploaded photos that are under the control of facebook under the new TOS agreement, where they live, phone numbers, what they like, what they dislike, their status updates, etc.
so please, everyone be quiet about this 'omg my civil liberties are being trampled on!'
the moment you go on the internet, privacy goes right out the window.
and btw, google stores location data allll the time.
facebook.com? lol, more like facebook.gov
I'm not on Facebook.
And for a lot of things I can chose to opt-out, or even better, I get to opt-in.
This is stored without me knowing, the data is stored unencrypted, and for most owners, the data will end up on their computers unencrypted.
Apple, Google, or my phone provider storing this information in their servers is a different issue than it being stored on the phone.
i don't see what the big deal is. so what if Apple is storing your location data.
everyone here is on facebook, exposing their real names, friends, user uploaded photos that are under the control of facebook under the new TOS agreement, where they live, phone numbers, what they like, what they dislike, their status updates, etc.
so please, everyone be quiet about this 'omg my civil liberties are being trampled on!'
the moment you go on the internet, privacy goes right out the window.
and btw, google stores location data allll the time.
facebook.com? lol, more like facebook.gov
I'm not on Facebook.
And for a lot of things I can chose to opt-out, or even better, I get to opt-in.
This is stored without me knowing, the data is stored unencrypted, and for most owners, the data will end up on their computers unencrypted.
Apple, Google, or my phone provider storing this information in their servers is a different issue than it being stored on the phone.
Cleverboy
Apr 19, 08:41 AM
They have plenty of patents. It wasn't until the 90s that the patent madness really started with software. Google is also leading the bidding for a large portfolio of mobile patents to protect them against Apple and Microsoft.
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2010/12/10/apple-nokia-others-bid-for-nortels-patent-treasure.aspx
Remember the last time Google made a HUGE move in an auction for something really important?
http://www.google.com/intl/en/press/pressrel/fccspectrum_20071130.html
This time, they have more at stake (and wireless spectrum and patents are completely different things), but Google doesn't seem to have its heart in battles like this. They've patented their homepage and logo doodle... but those seem like jokes.
Also... I could have sworn major companies like Microsoft and Apple were trying to buy the Nortel patents under a unified entity at one point, but it fell through. Not sure how much of a rumor that was.
~ CB
http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2010/12/10/apple-nokia-others-bid-for-nortels-patent-treasure.aspx
Remember the last time Google made a HUGE move in an auction for something really important?
http://www.google.com/intl/en/press/pressrel/fccspectrum_20071130.html
This time, they have more at stake (and wireless spectrum and patents are completely different things), but Google doesn't seem to have its heart in battles like this. They've patented their homepage and logo doodle... but those seem like jokes.
Also... I could have sworn major companies like Microsoft and Apple were trying to buy the Nortel patents under a unified entity at one point, but it fell through. Not sure how much of a rumor that was.
~ CB
jakemikey
Sep 10, 09:16 AM
It is expected to be a Conroe "drop-in" and should work with the same motherboards as Conroe.
This won't be the case:
http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=16078
just because it's LGA 775 doesn't mean it's a Conroe 'drop-in'. It'll need at least a 975x or p965 chipset and modified motherboard circuitry to handle it. And please, people, stop with the 'pin compatible' crap. Just because a proc is 'pin compatible' with another proc doesn't mean you can mix and match as you like. You have to think about the chipset, and about voltage regulators, and the motherboard circuitry in general. I have a board with a Pentium D in it right now - both the socket and the chipset support Conroe, but the board itself doesn't simply because of the voltage regulator. By the 'pin compatible' theory, I should be able to shove a Kentsfield into just about any late-model P4 board and have it work just fine -- won't happen!
This won't be the case:
http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=16078
just because it's LGA 775 doesn't mean it's a Conroe 'drop-in'. It'll need at least a 975x or p965 chipset and modified motherboard circuitry to handle it. And please, people, stop with the 'pin compatible' crap. Just because a proc is 'pin compatible' with another proc doesn't mean you can mix and match as you like. You have to think about the chipset, and about voltage regulators, and the motherboard circuitry in general. I have a board with a Pentium D in it right now - both the socket and the chipset support Conroe, but the board itself doesn't simply because of the voltage regulator. By the 'pin compatible' theory, I should be able to shove a Kentsfield into just about any late-model P4 board and have it work just fine -- won't happen!
jakemikey
Sep 10, 09:16 AM
It is expected to be a Conroe "drop-in" and should work with the same motherboards as Conroe.
This won't be the case:
http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=16078
just because it's LGA 775 doesn't mean it's a Conroe 'drop-in'. It'll need at least a 975x or p965 chipset and modified motherboard circuitry to handle it. And please, people, stop with the 'pin compatible' crap. Just because a proc is 'pin compatible' with another proc doesn't mean you can mix and match as you like. You have to think about the chipset, and about voltage regulators, and the motherboard circuitry in general. I have a board with a Pentium D in it right now - both the socket and the chipset support Conroe, but the board itself doesn't simply because of the voltage regulator. By the 'pin compatible' theory, I should be able to shove a Kentsfield into just about any late-model P4 board and have it work just fine -- won't happen!
This won't be the case:
http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=16078
just because it's LGA 775 doesn't mean it's a Conroe 'drop-in'. It'll need at least a 975x or p965 chipset and modified motherboard circuitry to handle it. And please, people, stop with the 'pin compatible' crap. Just because a proc is 'pin compatible' with another proc doesn't mean you can mix and match as you like. You have to think about the chipset, and about voltage regulators, and the motherboard circuitry in general. I have a board with a Pentium D in it right now - both the socket and the chipset support Conroe, but the board itself doesn't simply because of the voltage regulator. By the 'pin compatible' theory, I should be able to shove a Kentsfield into just about any late-model P4 board and have it work just fine -- won't happen!
ImageWrangler
Apr 19, 01:32 PM
The phone's look is indeed very similar.
Of course, Samsung's Android phone has many additional items such as their pulldown notification shade with built-in radio and orientation lock controls... which many people would love for Apple to copy.
The tablet is a different matter, and doesn't have the same look.
Wait, people actually still listen to actual radios?
But seriously yeaaaahhhh not a huge wanted feature by the general populace.
Of course, Samsung's Android phone has many additional items such as their pulldown notification shade with built-in radio and orientation lock controls... which many people would love for Apple to copy.
The tablet is a different matter, and doesn't have the same look.
Wait, people actually still listen to actual radios?
But seriously yeaaaahhhh not a huge wanted feature by the general populace.
LagunaSol
Apr 19, 11:10 PM
My only point in this whole discussion is Apple is not all sweet and innocent like so many like to think
Where did anyone say that?
And as an aside, The Beatles Let It Be album had a red apple logo in the center instead of the usual green.
I thought that cover had photos of the Beatles on it?
And red or green, their logo still looks nothing like the Apple Computer logo.
Where did anyone say that?
And as an aside, The Beatles Let It Be album had a red apple logo in the center instead of the usual green.
I thought that cover had photos of the Beatles on it?
And red or green, their logo still looks nothing like the Apple Computer logo.
Unspeaked
Sep 14, 10:06 AM
Because, AFAIK, there's no market for a "Think Differently" camera. A professional photographer doesn't need a camera to match their MacBook Pro, they want one that was made by a pro camera maker.
The same thing could have been said of the Aperture software...
Plus, what's to stop Apple from teaming with a "true" camera manufacturer and co-branding something?
(I'm not saying it will happen, or that I'm expecting it, but I'm just surprised it's so easily dismissed by people who comment daily on how Apple should enter the cell phone market, DVR arena, PDA front, etc and - for the most part - scoffed at the intro of a consumer music player...)
The same thing could have been said of the Aperture software...
Plus, what's to stop Apple from teaming with a "true" camera manufacturer and co-branding something?
(I'm not saying it will happen, or that I'm expecting it, but I'm just surprised it's so easily dismissed by people who comment daily on how Apple should enter the cell phone market, DVR arena, PDA front, etc and - for the most part - scoffed at the intro of a consumer music player...)
NT1440
Apr 19, 04:07 PM
Of course that is ridiculous, and I totally agree there should be a line, but where do we draw it? Who gets to draw it?
There is this funny phenomena where workers get together and meet with their employers to negotiate these things.
Lucky for us, the Republi****s are actively pushing incredibly hard to rid the country of such an evil phenomenon.
There is this funny phenomena where workers get together and meet with their employers to negotiate these things.
Lucky for us, the Republi****s are actively pushing incredibly hard to rid the country of such an evil phenomenon.
hvfsl
Aug 23, 05:58 PM
dought that very much there are better sound cards on the market
Not if you want to play games.
Not if you want to play games.
No comments:
Post a Comment