Aquaduck04
May 4, 08:58 AM
Wait, tell me what the source is again? A CSR via a forum member?? Gotta be joking..
more...
little.pm
Apr 14, 07:35 AM
Nano. Like, obviously.
Seems like everyone forgot about the somewhat recent rumors about a smaller iphone. (Ok, just kidding.)
Maybe apple wants the rumor mill to get up to speed as they want to introduce anything but nobody got a hint or has a clue yet. Total disclosure is bad, but no rumors is even worse.
regards
--------
I just have Macs, in various sizes. All run on Darwin.
Seems like everyone forgot about the somewhat recent rumors about a smaller iphone. (Ok, just kidding.)
Maybe apple wants the rumor mill to get up to speed as they want to introduce anything but nobody got a hint or has a clue yet. Total disclosure is bad, but no rumors is even worse.
regards
--------
I just have Macs, in various sizes. All run on Darwin.
more...
Corey Grandy
Nov 1, 09:08 AM
Some shirts:
http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/4564/binxs.jpghttp://img155.imageshack.us/img155/9789/bravener.png
The greatest show:
http://img534.imageshack.us/img534/9161/howimetyourmotherseason.jpg
Adult, Clothbound Harry Potter collection:
http://img522.imageshack.us/img522/1835/hpotter.jpg
Some games for the 360:
http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/3509/enus111xbox360starwarsf.pnghttp://img218.imageshack.us/img218/5922/portadadesmackdownvsraw.pnghttp://img213.imageshack.us/img213/5751/screenshot20101101at105.png
http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/4564/binxs.jpghttp://img155.imageshack.us/img155/9789/bravener.png
The greatest show:
http://img534.imageshack.us/img534/9161/howimetyourmotherseason.jpg
Adult, Clothbound Harry Potter collection:
http://img522.imageshack.us/img522/1835/hpotter.jpg
Some games for the 360:
http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/3509/enus111xbox360starwarsf.pnghttp://img218.imageshack.us/img218/5922/portadadesmackdownvsraw.pnghttp://img213.imageshack.us/img213/5751/screenshot20101101at105.png
more...
Yvan256
Jul 28, 09:12 AM
I clearly state it's not an HD-DVD player, nor do I say it's the only upscaling "player" out there. It IS the only game console that upscales standard DVDs at this point though.
And you really think this is a major factor for people buying a 400$CAD - 500$CAD game console?
Upscaling DVDs to 720p is something I expect from those 30$CAD no-name DVD players in about 6 months.
And you really think this is a major factor for people buying a 400$CAD - 500$CAD game console?
Upscaling DVDs to 720p is something I expect from those 30$CAD no-name DVD players in about 6 months.
more...
ohaithar
Sep 13, 11:22 PM
This shirt
http://www.zambooie.com/product_images/twloha/TWLGUYS157.jpg
http://www.zambooie.com/product_images/twloha/TWLGUYS157.jpg
more...
spicyapple
Dec 3, 10:34 AM
Judging by the progression in the poll numbers, looks like FUD is gaining traction.
more...
Groves
Mar 31, 10:42 AM
Huge drop in productivity.
Those OCD mac users will be picking at that torn-page remnant all day long.
Those OCD mac users will be picking at that torn-page remnant all day long.
more...
Mac Fly (film)
Aug 15, 04:57 PM
I want mine to use the old-school Mac voice that Radiohead used in "Fitter Happier."
I used to be a big fan of Radiohead, I have most of their albums, but I no longer listen to them. I'm gone very Jazz and 80's lately :p
I used to be a big fan of Radiohead, I have most of their albums, but I no longer listen to them. I'm gone very Jazz and 80's lately :p
more...
Badandy
Jan 27, 06:55 PM
The P/E was just so high. And as Reilly and others have pointed out, it should be higher than its competitors due to the ridiculous growth. But you have the whole subprime mess, possible reception, low iPod numbers, and a monster P/E, it makes sense that there was a big correction.
I think it will drop to about $95 once it's all said and done (if we go into bad financial times), and I'll just pick up a bunch more there because no matter what the market does, Apple still has rock solid financials and growth.
I think it will drop to about $95 once it's all said and done (if we go into bad financial times), and I'll just pick up a bunch more there because no matter what the market does, Apple still has rock solid financials and growth.
more...
jtara
Apr 14, 11:14 AM
Interesting possibility. It would be extremely difficult to emulate a complete iOS device (custom ASICs and all). But Apple could emulate just enough ARM instructions to emulate an app that was compiled by Xcode & LLVM (which would limit the way ARM instructions were generated), and used only legal public iOS APIs (instead of emulating hardware and all the registers), which could be translated in Cocoa APIs to display on a Mac OS X machine.
There's no need to emulate ARM instructions, though. And they already do emulate all of the complete iOS devices, at least sufficiently to run iOS apps on OSX.
Apple provides developers with a complete emulation package for testing their iOS apps on OSX. Apps are cross-compiled to x86 code. They also provide the complete set of iOS SDKs, cross-compiled to X86 code.
An emulator handles the device hardware - touchscreen, display, sound system, GPS (REALLY simple emulation - it's always sunny in Mountain View...), etc. If an iPhone or iPad are attached via USB cable, the emulator can even use the accelerometer and gyroscope in the device. Obviously, this could be easily changed to use some new peripheral device.
Other than device emulation, the apps suffer no loss of speed, since they are running native x86 code. In fact, they run considerably faster (ignoring, for this discussion, device emulation) than then do on an actual iOS device.
All Apple would need to give consumers the ability to run iOS apps on their Macs would be to provide them with the emulator (or, more likely, integrate it into the OSX desktop. I think end-users would find the picture of an iPhone or iPad that the emulator draws around the "screen" cute for a couple of days, but then quickly tire of it...), and add an additional target for developers.
What we've seen certainly seems to suggest that's what this is. HOWEVER:
1. For a single app to be compatible with both ARM and x86, they would need to introduce a "fat binary" similar to what they did with the transition from PowerPC to x86. This would bloat apps that are compatible with both to double their current download size. Current Universal (iPhone/iPad) apps are NOT fat binaries. They have multiple sets of resources (images, screen layouts, etc.) and the code needs to have multiple behaviors depending on the device. i.e. the code has to check "is this an iPad? If so do this...
Currently, developers have to create separate binaries for use on the emulator or the actual device.
2. Several developers have checked-in here to say that their apps are listed this way. None have offered that they had any advance knowledge of this, or did anything to make it happen. If this is about ARM/x86 fat binaries, the developer would have had to build their app that way. And even if it didn't require a re-build, I think it's highly unlikely that Apple would start selling apps on a new platform without letting the developers know!
3. Apple is *reasonably* fair about giving all developers access to new technology at the same time. They also generally make a public announcement at the same time as making beta SDKs available to developers. (Though the public announcement may be limited in scope and vague.) There are so many developers, that despite confidentiality agreements, most of the details get out to the public pretty quickly, though perhaps in muddled form. While Apple DOES hand-pick developers for early-early access, it's typically not THAT early. A few weeks, max.
I do think that an x86 target for iOS apps is inevitable. Just not imminent.
My best guess is that this was a screw-up by the web-site developers. Perhaps they did a mockup of the app store for the marketing people, selected some apps or app categories that seemed likely candidates, and slipped-up and it went live on the real app store.
There's no need to emulate ARM instructions, though. And they already do emulate all of the complete iOS devices, at least sufficiently to run iOS apps on OSX.
Apple provides developers with a complete emulation package for testing their iOS apps on OSX. Apps are cross-compiled to x86 code. They also provide the complete set of iOS SDKs, cross-compiled to X86 code.
An emulator handles the device hardware - touchscreen, display, sound system, GPS (REALLY simple emulation - it's always sunny in Mountain View...), etc. If an iPhone or iPad are attached via USB cable, the emulator can even use the accelerometer and gyroscope in the device. Obviously, this could be easily changed to use some new peripheral device.
Other than device emulation, the apps suffer no loss of speed, since they are running native x86 code. In fact, they run considerably faster (ignoring, for this discussion, device emulation) than then do on an actual iOS device.
All Apple would need to give consumers the ability to run iOS apps on their Macs would be to provide them with the emulator (or, more likely, integrate it into the OSX desktop. I think end-users would find the picture of an iPhone or iPad that the emulator draws around the "screen" cute for a couple of days, but then quickly tire of it...), and add an additional target for developers.
What we've seen certainly seems to suggest that's what this is. HOWEVER:
1. For a single app to be compatible with both ARM and x86, they would need to introduce a "fat binary" similar to what they did with the transition from PowerPC to x86. This would bloat apps that are compatible with both to double their current download size. Current Universal (iPhone/iPad) apps are NOT fat binaries. They have multiple sets of resources (images, screen layouts, etc.) and the code needs to have multiple behaviors depending on the device. i.e. the code has to check "is this an iPad? If so do this...
Currently, developers have to create separate binaries for use on the emulator or the actual device.
2. Several developers have checked-in here to say that their apps are listed this way. None have offered that they had any advance knowledge of this, or did anything to make it happen. If this is about ARM/x86 fat binaries, the developer would have had to build their app that way. And even if it didn't require a re-build, I think it's highly unlikely that Apple would start selling apps on a new platform without letting the developers know!
3. Apple is *reasonably* fair about giving all developers access to new technology at the same time. They also generally make a public announcement at the same time as making beta SDKs available to developers. (Though the public announcement may be limited in scope and vague.) There are so many developers, that despite confidentiality agreements, most of the details get out to the public pretty quickly, though perhaps in muddled form. While Apple DOES hand-pick developers for early-early access, it's typically not THAT early. A few weeks, max.
I do think that an x86 target for iOS apps is inevitable. Just not imminent.
My best guess is that this was a screw-up by the web-site developers. Perhaps they did a mockup of the app store for the marketing people, selected some apps or app categories that seemed likely candidates, and slipped-up and it went live on the real app store.
more...
Weaselboy
Apr 14, 01:21 PM
http://i.imgur.com/FWQIv.png
666MB for AT&T iPhone 4.
Of course it would be 666mb for AT&T...
;)
Dun dun dun... :D
666MB for AT&T iPhone 4.
Of course it would be 666mb for AT&T...
;)
Dun dun dun... :D
more...
LaMerVipere
Jul 24, 05:52 PM
The Might Mouse is the worst piece of crap Apple has ever released. Everyone knows it!
The only reason anyone would buy this thing is because of blind Apple brand loyalty.
The only reason anyone would buy this thing is because of blind Apple brand loyalty.
more...
freeny
Jul 25, 08:37 AM
that's at least 3 MX-1000 users we have that are well-satisfied :-)
Add me to that list!
Love my MX:)
Add me to that list!
Love my MX:)
more...
heron88
Apr 4, 03:27 PM
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5221/5590767671_8ebac16a35_b.jpg
---f/14---8"---ISO100---28mm---
---f/14---8"---ISO100---28mm---
more...
twoodcc
Oct 31, 06:05 PM
it's doing one frame about every 33 mins now with -16
alright, now we're talkin!
alright, now we're talkin!
more...
Mattsasa
Apr 28, 11:25 AM
If apple got their dual-band world phone out a year earlier, for all carriers, it would have made a huge difference!!!! I can't believe apple is delaying the iPhone 5!!!!!!!!!!
I am not apple, so I am probably wrong, but delaying the IPhone 5 seems like the worst business decision ever!!!!!!!!!
The iPhone 5 better be a major upgrade that makes it better than all the other devices out there, and better be on all carriers!!!!
I am not apple, so I am probably wrong, but delaying the IPhone 5 seems like the worst business decision ever!!!!!!!!!
The iPhone 5 better be a major upgrade that makes it better than all the other devices out there, and better be on all carriers!!!!
more...
LightSpeed1
Apr 14, 01:06 AM
Will it blend???That's funny.
Please no, not another thing to add to my signature.:( :D
Please no, not another thing to add to my signature.:( :D
more...
wizz0bang
Jul 24, 04:46 PM
I really hope that this mouse can better distinguish between a right and left click than the wired MM.
Agreed... the corded MM needs improvements. Hopefully they address this at the same time as adding BT.
Agreed... the corded MM needs improvements. Hopefully they address this at the same time as adding BT.
more...
DMann
Sep 29, 10:39 PM
At least AT&T has been stepping up their efforts by investing billions into building new towers and expanding and solidifying their coverage.
chris975d
Apr 28, 04:40 PM
Exactly.
So either these pics are of a conversion kit white iPhone or these kits in fact followed the same specs of the Apple white door - which is slightly bigger too.
I could now see it being either of these two possibilities. Originally I just chalked it up to the aftermarket stuff being cheaply made and not being manufactured to precise measurements, but if the Apple white OEM parts are in fact thicker, it's obvious these aftermarket makers already somehow knew of the increase in thickness, and were following those specs (and have been for quite some time now).
So either these pics are of a conversion kit white iPhone or these kits in fact followed the same specs of the Apple white door - which is slightly bigger too.
I could now see it being either of these two possibilities. Originally I just chalked it up to the aftermarket stuff being cheaply made and not being manufactured to precise measurements, but if the Apple white OEM parts are in fact thicker, it's obvious these aftermarket makers already somehow knew of the increase in thickness, and were following those specs (and have been for quite some time now).
Chas2010
Apr 14, 04:33 PM
Calling people "douchebags"? Seriously, get some grown up patter ... honestly to God, what is this? US TV Stereotypes Vol.1?
It's not "beyond picky" based on two FACTS.
1. It wasn't present or an issue in iOS 4.0 to 4.2.
2. The stock Apple apps don't do it, so to say it's Apple making the apps launch quicker would require 0.0002 seconds of brain power to realise, "Oh wait, if they were making apps load quicker, it'd be across the ENTIRE operating system".
Think. Think some more. Then consider typing ...
I completely echo this comment. When I got my iPhone 4, I was completely ecstatic with its speed in every app. It was so fast that I would send myself text messages as quick reminders, rather than using any app to do the same. Now, however, it no longer runs fast enough for that. I'm used to Wintel products running slower over time, but I don't expect this from Apple.
It's not "beyond picky" based on two FACTS.
1. It wasn't present or an issue in iOS 4.0 to 4.2.
2. The stock Apple apps don't do it, so to say it's Apple making the apps launch quicker would require 0.0002 seconds of brain power to realise, "Oh wait, if they were making apps load quicker, it'd be across the ENTIRE operating system".
Think. Think some more. Then consider typing ...
I completely echo this comment. When I got my iPhone 4, I was completely ecstatic with its speed in every app. It was so fast that I would send myself text messages as quick reminders, rather than using any app to do the same. Now, however, it no longer runs fast enough for that. I'm used to Wintel products running slower over time, but I don't expect this from Apple.
applesith
Apr 29, 03:01 PM
I wonder if this new pricing scheme is being enabled by the record labels with lower wholesale pricing to Amazon (to try, yet again, to take power out of Apple's hands), or if Amazon is simply doing this at a loss?
Why would Amazon want to take a loss - to support non-Apple mp3 players?
For Apple, they are not making much, if any money - they always planned it as a break-even business - the real value was the content eco-system tied to their products (= value for customers).
Gain market share for Amazon. Like last year when they sold MP3 albums at a loss.
Why would Amazon want to take a loss - to support non-Apple mp3 players?
For Apple, they are not making much, if any money - they always planned it as a break-even business - the real value was the content eco-system tied to their products (= value for customers).
Gain market share for Amazon. Like last year when they sold MP3 albums at a loss.
j800r
May 3, 08:09 AM
The way they've been able to keep the price low while using quad-cores in EVERY iMac has been by downgrading the GPUs. The Graphics Cards in EVERY model are now mobile. In the last line of iMacs they were full powered desktop GPUs.
So, you see, while there's an upside (the processors), it doesn't come without a down (the GPUs). At first glance I was really annoyed as the �999 one (which is what I got before the refresh) had an i5 quad core, then I saw the graphics memory and got even more annoyed, but THEN I noticed the large shiny M at the end of the GPU name. THAT's how they've been able to bring us them processors and still keep the price down. They've downgraded the GPUs. As my i3 processor practically acts like a quad core anyway and is virtually never pushed to it's limits I think I'm more than happy with what I have. The GPU may only have 256MB dedicated memory but at least it's not mobile.
So, you see, while there's an upside (the processors), it doesn't come without a down (the GPUs). At first glance I was really annoyed as the �999 one (which is what I got before the refresh) had an i5 quad core, then I saw the graphics memory and got even more annoyed, but THEN I noticed the large shiny M at the end of the GPU name. THAT's how they've been able to bring us them processors and still keep the price down. They've downgraded the GPUs. As my i3 processor practically acts like a quad core anyway and is virtually never pushed to it's limits I think I'm more than happy with what I have. The GPU may only have 256MB dedicated memory but at least it's not mobile.
Scarlet Fever
Oct 23, 07:57 AM
As if that's going to stop people. Most people don't even know about these usage restrictions.There are usage restrictions? :rolleyes: joking...
seriously, since when have people done as M$ tell you to do? Don't something like 35% of Windows-based computers run illegal copies of the OS?
seriously, since when have people done as M$ tell you to do? Don't something like 35% of Windows-based computers run illegal copies of the OS?
No comments:
Post a Comment