gwangung
Jan 15, 09:06 PM
Blogging isn't journalism, otherwise Mrs Weisman down the street who blogs about her bridge club is a journalist. Did we really learn nothing from the Engadget Apple stock thing?
Well, actually, not quite...A journalist reports. If you report, you're a journalist. Some folks are better at it than others.
DivX Wallpapers
Well, actually, not quite...A journalist reports. If you report, you're a journalist. Some folks are better at it than others.
MacRumors
Jul 21, 09:01 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2010/07/21/apple-targets-nokia-with-new-signal-attenuation-video/)
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2010/07/21/095823-nokia_signal_attenuation.jpg
Magnetic Field Lines
HD Color Lines wallpaper
Feedback Lines Wallpaper
Stretched Lines Wallpaper
Wallpaper Wallpaper, Lines
Wallpaper Vector Lines Green
the lines wallpaper to go
Lines Live Wallpaper
Bubbles – Wallpaper set
Light Lines Wallpaper
CleanLinesWallpaper - PNW3
UmberBurntSiennaLinesWallpaper
WhiteUmberLinesWallpaper.JPG
Free Mobile Phone Wallpapers
Free Mobile Phone Wallpapers
Lines - Live Wallpaper
Falling Lines Wallpaper
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2010/07/21/095823-nokia_signal_attenuation.jpg
tvguru
Sep 25, 11:34 AM
You are kidding right? There's a whole guide on "next Tuesday" right here on MR.
His entire comment was in a joking manner, but that part he meant. :p
His entire comment was in a joking manner, but that part he meant. :p
The Phazer
May 3, 03:02 PM
Users can of course work around carrier restrictions with methods known as "sideloading" that allow users to install apps through unapproved sources, but most casual users are undoubtedly sticking to mainstream, authorized marketplaces such as the Android Market for their needs.
Hmm, I find this highly doubtful to be honest. Aside from anyone who's bought a locked down Android phone that doesn't allow sideloading, I would expect that nearly everyone uses it.
Phazer
Hmm, I find this highly doubtful to be honest. Aside from anyone who's bought a locked down Android phone that doesn't allow sideloading, I would expect that nearly everyone uses it.
Phazer
rmwebs
Apr 25, 02:35 PM
I really don't see the point in this...you gain a tiny amount of screen space, at a price of worse battery life and worse processor performance (due to having to process more imaging data, hence why the 3GS has performed better than the iP4 in a lot of situations).
Lynxpro
Oct 20, 01:40 PM
Seriously, the more I think about it, the more upset I am that they aren't offering one. I mean, what the heck are they goint to do with $10 billion? Even the most aggressive expansion and R&D strategy doesn't justify holding onto that. And it would be a great way to offset any damage from the options fiasco. And it would boost the shares 5% (at least) on announcement. They USED to pay a dividend (1987-1995). It's time to bring it back!
Oh, I dunno, perhaps acquire some more companies? You know, like TiVo - with its valuable IP - for an easy $400 million. Or pump it into R&D. Or a stake in Nintendo or Sony. Or acquire the EMI Music Group (for $1 billion) as a buffer against the other RIAA members pressuring for an increase in the iTunes Store pricing. Or finally pay off Apple Records once and for all. Those are several things Apple could do* with that $10 billion that could be more useful than artificially boosting the stock by paying out an expensive dividend to grumpy shareholders.
Heck, maybe they could go all-solar on the Apple campus like what Google is doing.
*My personal favorite idea would be for Apple to acquire Atari dirt-cheap. This would give Apple a large library of classic titles that could be ported to the iPod, not to mention giving Apple a brand that could be used to pump out OS X "compatible" computers geared towards gamers in order to boost gaming on OS X overall and a means at gunning after Dell-owned Alienware and Dell's own XPS line.
Oh, I dunno, perhaps acquire some more companies? You know, like TiVo - with its valuable IP - for an easy $400 million. Or pump it into R&D. Or a stake in Nintendo or Sony. Or acquire the EMI Music Group (for $1 billion) as a buffer against the other RIAA members pressuring for an increase in the iTunes Store pricing. Or finally pay off Apple Records once and for all. Those are several things Apple could do* with that $10 billion that could be more useful than artificially boosting the stock by paying out an expensive dividend to grumpy shareholders.
Heck, maybe they could go all-solar on the Apple campus like what Google is doing.
*My personal favorite idea would be for Apple to acquire Atari dirt-cheap. This would give Apple a large library of classic titles that could be ported to the iPod, not to mention giving Apple a brand that could be used to pump out OS X "compatible" computers geared towards gamers in order to boost gaming on OS X overall and a means at gunning after Dell-owned Alienware and Dell's own XPS line.
spillproof
Oct 6, 12:29 PM
Getting back to the actual advertisement. What self-respecting advertising professional would use someone else's tagline like that.
I had a few friends watching the football game (where we saw the ad) and half of them thought it was an iphone commercial because they were only half paying attention and heard "there's a map for that".
Pretty shoddy work in my opinion.
I disagree. It is a satirical and pokes fun of AT&T and Apple while giving facts. It gets you to think, which is the goal of an advertisement.
I like this commercial and hope it makes AT&T a little more scared that they are failing. (Or I could be bias for my love of satires and dislike for AT&T :cool:)
I think first Verizon has to back a truck full of money up to Apple's campus, then Apple has to build a CDMA iPhone :D
Just one?
I had a few friends watching the football game (where we saw the ad) and half of them thought it was an iphone commercial because they were only half paying attention and heard "there's a map for that".
Pretty shoddy work in my opinion.
I disagree. It is a satirical and pokes fun of AT&T and Apple while giving facts. It gets you to think, which is the goal of an advertisement.
I like this commercial and hope it makes AT&T a little more scared that they are failing. (Or I could be bias for my love of satires and dislike for AT&T :cool:)
I think first Verizon has to back a truck full of money up to Apple's campus, then Apple has to build a CDMA iPhone :D
Just one?
7o7munoz7o7
Dec 13, 05:08 PM
How about not even putting it up on the site? My question was why do they have to have a new article for every time someone says that?
As for peeing pants, ok, maybe people aren't peeing their pants. But obviously people care enough to post these this rumor every time another site posts the rumor. I'm just tired of seeing dozens of new articles about this place or that place saying "iPhone on Verizon after Christmas!" Ok, I get it! People expect a Verizon iPhone. Get over it. This is kinda like the Beatles on iTunes, or people talking for months that Michael Jackson died, etc.
Anyone know a good news site that says what has happened and then move on to the next news item? If this is all that MacRumors is going to post, I think it may be time to say goodbye to MacRumors. Just tired of seeing the same rumors repeated over & over again.
Yeah I think its time for you to say goodbye....whats wrong with talking about Michael Jackson dying? He was a great, and just because he died didnt mean his music and fans did...everyone that wants the VZW iPhone are going to read the articles that talks about it...if you dont care about this, then dont move your hand and click on the link about this. Sick of people like you.
As for peeing pants, ok, maybe people aren't peeing their pants. But obviously people care enough to post these this rumor every time another site posts the rumor. I'm just tired of seeing dozens of new articles about this place or that place saying "iPhone on Verizon after Christmas!" Ok, I get it! People expect a Verizon iPhone. Get over it. This is kinda like the Beatles on iTunes, or people talking for months that Michael Jackson died, etc.
Anyone know a good news site that says what has happened and then move on to the next news item? If this is all that MacRumors is going to post, I think it may be time to say goodbye to MacRumors. Just tired of seeing the same rumors repeated over & over again.
Yeah I think its time for you to say goodbye....whats wrong with talking about Michael Jackson dying? He was a great, and just because he died didnt mean his music and fans did...everyone that wants the VZW iPhone are going to read the articles that talks about it...if you dont care about this, then dont move your hand and click on the link about this. Sick of people like you.
Sedrick
Mar 19, 05:46 AM
iPhone is a great target because of the "holier than thou" culture that Steve Jobs helped create. And now they come out with a phone with a shatter-prone back, flat/square as a brick, still retains the small 3.5" screen and the antenna problems. This is all excellent fuel for the haters.
Even with all that it's still the best phone out there, but the 4 is an even easier target and it's starting to wobble on it's pedestal. Now, when you pull out an iPhone 4, you can expect "oh, you got one of those."
You can thank Apple for making this all worse with it's stupid design decisions on the iPhone 4. They have a chance to fix a lot of this come June.
Even with all that it's still the best phone out there, but the 4 is an even easier target and it's starting to wobble on it's pedestal. Now, when you pull out an iPhone 4, you can expect "oh, you got one of those."
You can thank Apple for making this all worse with it's stupid design decisions on the iPhone 4. They have a chance to fix a lot of this come June.
vwcruisn
Apr 5, 03:28 PM
Probably, but as I am in the Marketing and Advertising business I will find this quite useful. Many of you are so quick to dismiss the usefulness of this App simply because you don't understand its true purpose.
"doesn't apply to me so it's useless" mentality. guess the world revolves around them :p
"doesn't apply to me so it's useless" mentality. guess the world revolves around them :p
shartypants
May 3, 01:55 PM
Why is it that Google always touts how open is so good, then they realize that, oh, guess we should tighten things up a bit, maybe being too open is not such a good thing.
DTphonehome
Apr 5, 03:38 PM
Free download? I would easily pay $9.99 to be advertised to.
snberk103
Apr 15, 12:29 PM
While this is true, we can't allow that technicality to wipe the slate clean. Our security as a whole is deficient, even if the TSA on its own might not be responsible for these two particular failures. Our tax dollars are still going to the our mutual safety so we should expect more.
As I said, I understood the point you were trying to make. But.... you can't take two non-TSA incidents and use those to make a case against the TSA specifically. All you can do is say that increased security, similar to what the TSA does, can be shown to not catch everything. I could just as easily argue that because the two incidents (shoe and underwear bombers) did not occur from TSA screenings then that is proof the TSA methods work. I could, but I won't because we don't really know that is true. Too small a sample to judge.
Well when a fanatic is willing to commit suicide because he believes that he'll be rewarded in heaven, 50/50 odds don't seem to be all that much of a deterrent.
Did you not read my post above? Or did you not understand it? Or did I not write clearly? I'll assume the 3rd. Past history is that bombs are not put on planes by lone wolf fanatics. They are placed there by a whole operation involving a number of people... perhaps a dozen, maybe? The person carrying the bomb may be a brainwashed fool (though, surprisingly - often educated) - but the support team likely aren't fools. The team includes dedicated individuals who have specialized training and experience that are needed to mount further operations. The bomb makers, the money people, the people who nurture the bomb carrier and ensure that they are fit (mentally) to go through with a suicide attack. These people, the support crew, are not going to like 50/50 odds. Nor, are the support teams command and control. The security forces have shown themselves to be quite good at eventually following the linkages back up the chain.
What's worse is that we've only achieved that with a lot of our personal dignity, time, and money. I don't think we can tolerate much more. We should be expecting more for the time, money, and humiliation we're putting ourselves (and our 6 year-old children) through.
You are right. There has been a cost to dignity, time and money. Most of life is. People are constantly balancing personal and societal security/safety against personal freedoms. In this case what you think is only part of the balance between society and security. You feel it's too far. I can't argue. I don't fly anymore unless I have to. But, I also think that what the TSA (and CATSA, & the European equivalents) are doing is working. I just don't have to like going through it.
....
Your statistics don't unequivocally prove the efficacy of the TSA though. They only show that the TSA employs a cost-benefit method to determine what measures to take.
Give the man/woman/boy a cigar! There is no way to prove it, other than setting controlled experiments in which make some airports security free, and others with varying levels of security. And in some cases you don't tell the travelling public which airports have what level (if any) of security - but you do tell the bad guys/gals.
In other words, in this world... all you've got is incomplete data to try and make a reasonable decisions based on a cost/benefit analysis.
Since you believe in the efficacy of the TSA so much, the burden is yours to make a clear and convincing case, not mine. I can provide alternative hypotheses, but I am in no way saying that these are provable at the current moment in time.
I did. I cited a sharp drop-off in hijackings at a particular moment in history. Within the limits of a Mac Rumours Forum, that is as far as I'm going to go. If you an alternative hypothesis, you have to at least back it up with something. My something trumps your alternative hypothesis - even if my something is merely a pair of deuces - until you provide something to back up your AH.
I'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
Objections with nothing to support them.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
Good. Support your hypothesis. Otherwise it's got the exactly the same weight as my hypothesis that in fact Lisa's rock was making the bears scarce.
Terrorism is a complex thing. My bet is that as we waged wars in multiple nations, it became more advantageous for fanatics to strike where our military forces were.
US has been waging wars in multiple nations since.... well, lets not go there.... for a long time. What changed on 9/11? Besides enhanced security at the airports, that is.
Without having to gain entry into the country, get past airport security (no matter what odds were), or hijack a plane, terrorists were able to kill over 4,000 Americans in Iraq and nearly 1,500 in Afghanistan. That's almost twice as many as were killed on 9/11.
Over 10 years, not 10 minutes. It is the single act of terrorism on 9/11 that is engraved on people's (not just American) memories and consciousnesses - not the background and now seemingly routine deaths in the military ranks (I'm speaking about the general population, not about the families and fellow soldiers of those who have been killed.)
Terrorism against military targets is 1) not technically terrorism, and b) not very newsworthy to the public. That's why terrorists target civilians. Deadliest single overseas attack on the US military since the 2nd WW - where and when? Hint... it killed 241 American serviceman. Even if you know that incident, do you think it resonates with the general public in anyway? How about the Oklahoma City bombing? Bet you most people would think more people were killed there than in .... (shall I tell you? Beirut.) That's because civilians were targeted in OK, and the military in Beirut.
If I were the leader of a group intent on killing Americans and Westerners in general, I certainly would go down that route rather than hijack planes.
You'd not make the news very often, nor change much public opinion in the US, then.
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock.
But can you prove it? :)
Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation.
I'm glad you got that reference. The Salmon works like this. For millennia the bears and eagles have been scooping the salmon out of the streams. Bears, especially, don't actually eat much of the fish. They take a bite or two of the juiciest bits (from a bear's POV) and toss the carcass over their shoulder to scoop another Salmon. All those carcasses put fish fertilizer into the creek and river banks. A lot of fertilizer. So, the you get really big trees there.
That is not surprising, nor is it difficult to prove (you can track all three populations simultaneously). There is also a causal mechanism at work that can explain the effect without the need for new assumptions (Occam's Razor).
The efficacy of the TSA and our security measures, on the other hand, are quite complex and are affected by numerous causes.
But I think your reasoning is flawed. Human behaviour is much less complex than tracking how the ecosystem interacts with itself. One species vs numerous species; A species we can communicate with vs multiples that we can't; A long history of trying to understand human behaviour vs Not so much.
Changes in travel patterns, other nations' actions, and an enemey's changing strategy all play a big role. You can't ignore all of these and pronounce our security gimmicks (and really, that's what patting down a 6 year-old is) to be so masterfully effective.
It's also why they couldn't pay me enough me to run that operation. Too many "known unknowns".
We can't deduce anything from that footage of the 6 year old without knowing more. What if the explosives sniffing machine was going nuts anytime the girl went near it. If you were on that plane, wouldn't you want to know why that machine thought the girl has explosives on her? We don't know that there was a explosives sniffing device, and we don't know that there wasn't. All we know is from that footage that doesn't give us any context.
If I was a privacy or rights group, I would immediately launch an inquiry though. There is a enough information to be concerned, just not enough to form any conclusions what-so-ever. Except the screener appeared to be very professional.
As I said, I understood the point you were trying to make. But.... you can't take two non-TSA incidents and use those to make a case against the TSA specifically. All you can do is say that increased security, similar to what the TSA does, can be shown to not catch everything. I could just as easily argue that because the two incidents (shoe and underwear bombers) did not occur from TSA screenings then that is proof the TSA methods work. I could, but I won't because we don't really know that is true. Too small a sample to judge.
Well when a fanatic is willing to commit suicide because he believes that he'll be rewarded in heaven, 50/50 odds don't seem to be all that much of a deterrent.
Did you not read my post above? Or did you not understand it? Or did I not write clearly? I'll assume the 3rd. Past history is that bombs are not put on planes by lone wolf fanatics. They are placed there by a whole operation involving a number of people... perhaps a dozen, maybe? The person carrying the bomb may be a brainwashed fool (though, surprisingly - often educated) - but the support team likely aren't fools. The team includes dedicated individuals who have specialized training and experience that are needed to mount further operations. The bomb makers, the money people, the people who nurture the bomb carrier and ensure that they are fit (mentally) to go through with a suicide attack. These people, the support crew, are not going to like 50/50 odds. Nor, are the support teams command and control. The security forces have shown themselves to be quite good at eventually following the linkages back up the chain.
What's worse is that we've only achieved that with a lot of our personal dignity, time, and money. I don't think we can tolerate much more. We should be expecting more for the time, money, and humiliation we're putting ourselves (and our 6 year-old children) through.
You are right. There has been a cost to dignity, time and money. Most of life is. People are constantly balancing personal and societal security/safety against personal freedoms. In this case what you think is only part of the balance between society and security. You feel it's too far. I can't argue. I don't fly anymore unless I have to. But, I also think that what the TSA (and CATSA, & the European equivalents) are doing is working. I just don't have to like going through it.
....
Your statistics don't unequivocally prove the efficacy of the TSA though. They only show that the TSA employs a cost-benefit method to determine what measures to take.
Give the man/woman/boy a cigar! There is no way to prove it, other than setting controlled experiments in which make some airports security free, and others with varying levels of security. And in some cases you don't tell the travelling public which airports have what level (if any) of security - but you do tell the bad guys/gals.
In other words, in this world... all you've got is incomplete data to try and make a reasonable decisions based on a cost/benefit analysis.
Since you believe in the efficacy of the TSA so much, the burden is yours to make a clear and convincing case, not mine. I can provide alternative hypotheses, but I am in no way saying that these are provable at the current moment in time.
I did. I cited a sharp drop-off in hijackings at a particular moment in history. Within the limits of a Mac Rumours Forum, that is as far as I'm going to go. If you an alternative hypothesis, you have to at least back it up with something. My something trumps your alternative hypothesis - even if my something is merely a pair of deuces - until you provide something to back up your AH.
I'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
Objections with nothing to support them.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
Good. Support your hypothesis. Otherwise it's got the exactly the same weight as my hypothesis that in fact Lisa's rock was making the bears scarce.
Terrorism is a complex thing. My bet is that as we waged wars in multiple nations, it became more advantageous for fanatics to strike where our military forces were.
US has been waging wars in multiple nations since.... well, lets not go there.... for a long time. What changed on 9/11? Besides enhanced security at the airports, that is.
Without having to gain entry into the country, get past airport security (no matter what odds were), or hijack a plane, terrorists were able to kill over 4,000 Americans in Iraq and nearly 1,500 in Afghanistan. That's almost twice as many as were killed on 9/11.
Over 10 years, not 10 minutes. It is the single act of terrorism on 9/11 that is engraved on people's (not just American) memories and consciousnesses - not the background and now seemingly routine deaths in the military ranks (I'm speaking about the general population, not about the families and fellow soldiers of those who have been killed.)
Terrorism against military targets is 1) not technically terrorism, and b) not very newsworthy to the public. That's why terrorists target civilians. Deadliest single overseas attack on the US military since the 2nd WW - where and when? Hint... it killed 241 American serviceman. Even if you know that incident, do you think it resonates with the general public in anyway? How about the Oklahoma City bombing? Bet you most people would think more people were killed there than in .... (shall I tell you? Beirut.) That's because civilians were targeted in OK, and the military in Beirut.
If I were the leader of a group intent on killing Americans and Westerners in general, I certainly would go down that route rather than hijack planes.
You'd not make the news very often, nor change much public opinion in the US, then.
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock.
But can you prove it? :)
Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation.
I'm glad you got that reference. The Salmon works like this. For millennia the bears and eagles have been scooping the salmon out of the streams. Bears, especially, don't actually eat much of the fish. They take a bite or two of the juiciest bits (from a bear's POV) and toss the carcass over their shoulder to scoop another Salmon. All those carcasses put fish fertilizer into the creek and river banks. A lot of fertilizer. So, the you get really big trees there.
That is not surprising, nor is it difficult to prove (you can track all three populations simultaneously). There is also a causal mechanism at work that can explain the effect without the need for new assumptions (Occam's Razor).
The efficacy of the TSA and our security measures, on the other hand, are quite complex and are affected by numerous causes.
But I think your reasoning is flawed. Human behaviour is much less complex than tracking how the ecosystem interacts with itself. One species vs numerous species; A species we can communicate with vs multiples that we can't; A long history of trying to understand human behaviour vs Not so much.
Changes in travel patterns, other nations' actions, and an enemey's changing strategy all play a big role. You can't ignore all of these and pronounce our security gimmicks (and really, that's what patting down a 6 year-old is) to be so masterfully effective.
It's also why they couldn't pay me enough me to run that operation. Too many "known unknowns".
We can't deduce anything from that footage of the 6 year old without knowing more. What if the explosives sniffing machine was going nuts anytime the girl went near it. If you were on that plane, wouldn't you want to know why that machine thought the girl has explosives on her? We don't know that there was a explosives sniffing device, and we don't know that there wasn't. All we know is from that footage that doesn't give us any context.
If I was a privacy or rights group, I would immediately launch an inquiry though. There is a enough information to be concerned, just not enough to form any conclusions what-so-ever. Except the screener appeared to be very professional.
Drag'nGT
Oct 6, 12:08 PM
Isn't Verizon's 4G network going to be GSM?
on another note if it is wouldn't their coverage also be spotty?
Verizon bought many different CDMA companies that didn't take off during the early years of cell phones. Because of that, they have infrastructure that can be upgraded. In other words, they have towers in those areas that shaded red. CDMA or GSM doesn't matter so much as having a tower in the area to put equipment on. So no, the upgrade to 4G will not cause spotty coverage.
on another note if it is wouldn't their coverage also be spotty?
Verizon bought many different CDMA companies that didn't take off during the early years of cell phones. Because of that, they have infrastructure that can be upgraded. In other words, they have towers in those areas that shaded red. CDMA or GSM doesn't matter so much as having a tower in the area to put equipment on. So no, the upgrade to 4G will not cause spotty coverage.
WestonHarvey1
Jul 21, 12:40 PM
But Apple admitted that it DOES drop more calls than 3GS.
They spun it as "less than 1 per 100", but assuming all 3,000,000 iPhone 4 users make about 5 calls per day, that's over ONE MILLION dropped calls per week MORE than iPhone 3GS.[/I]
That total number is meaningless to the end user. The Average user will make 100 calls on a 4 and 100 on a 3GS and not see a difference.
It's also a number that could change from week to week depending on all sorts of nebulous factors. This week the stats might favor the 4 by 1 call for all you know.
They spun it as "less than 1 per 100", but assuming all 3,000,000 iPhone 4 users make about 5 calls per day, that's over ONE MILLION dropped calls per week MORE than iPhone 3GS.[/I]
That total number is meaningless to the end user. The Average user will make 100 calls on a 4 and 100 on a 3GS and not see a difference.
It's also a number that could change from week to week depending on all sorts of nebulous factors. This week the stats might favor the 4 by 1 call for all you know.
kuebby
Apr 6, 12:28 PM
Well I'm glad it's free, I'd hate to pay $.99 to look at ads.
quagmire
Jan 12, 09:38 AM
Jobs wasn't smug at all IMHO. He was excited about it. You should of clearly seen that. He made a few jokes( like that prank call to Starbucks), but that was just his normal old humor. The only problem I had was with the order he stated iPod, phone, and internet communicator. The iPod and phone got good responses and then the internet communicator the people went, " ummm.... ok." I would of went internet communicator-> iPod-> phone. Get louder responses step and save the best for last. Other then that the keynote was good, if not one of his best.
For you iPhone haters, you people seem to think hardware makes the product revolutionary. Since you think so, you're right then. The iPhone in terms of hardware is nothing special. Got the standard CPU, standard 2.5G things, etc. But, there is more things that make it revolutionary then hardware. The UI is what makes the iPhone revolutionary. How you navigate the iPhone is revolutionary. How easy it is to use it and navigate through it. Ok, so it uses flash instead of an HD. How do most people treat their cell phones? Most people I see their cell phones are beat up. Scratches galore, etc. I bet the HD would be killed within weeks. Not to mention the extra thickness and power usage. 8 GB is the highest affordable flash you can put in a product right now so Apple didn't skimp out on that. Plus, the iPhone is a phone first and foremost. The iPod part is just a feature on it. I love how someone avoided the question, " What else were you hoping for?" Doesn't answer the question at all. Just continues the BS on how the iPhone isn't revolutionary.
For most part, the iPhone haters simply don't get the point of Apple. Why Apple makes the products the way they do. They have been brainwashed by other companies throwing in technology galore into their products. What is the point of adding even more technology if the current technology in the product isn't easy to use? You're just going to confuse the crap out of your customer base. That is where Apple steps in. Apple takes the technology and makes it easier to use. So Apple doesn't always use the latest and greatest stuff in their products. Look at the original Mac. Nothing really new in there hardware wise. But, it changed how we used a computer. Fast forward to 2001 when the iPod was introduced. It was just another HD based MP3 player. Had nothing the competition. The iPod did what the other MP3 players could do. Yet, what made the iPod revolutionary was the way we navigated through an MP3 player and how we used it overall( the iTunes/iPod integration for example). It was easy to use and put music on it.
PS: If we bought everything Apple made why didn't the Newton and Cube sell well?
For you iPhone haters, you people seem to think hardware makes the product revolutionary. Since you think so, you're right then. The iPhone in terms of hardware is nothing special. Got the standard CPU, standard 2.5G things, etc. But, there is more things that make it revolutionary then hardware. The UI is what makes the iPhone revolutionary. How you navigate the iPhone is revolutionary. How easy it is to use it and navigate through it. Ok, so it uses flash instead of an HD. How do most people treat their cell phones? Most people I see their cell phones are beat up. Scratches galore, etc. I bet the HD would be killed within weeks. Not to mention the extra thickness and power usage. 8 GB is the highest affordable flash you can put in a product right now so Apple didn't skimp out on that. Plus, the iPhone is a phone first and foremost. The iPod part is just a feature on it. I love how someone avoided the question, " What else were you hoping for?" Doesn't answer the question at all. Just continues the BS on how the iPhone isn't revolutionary.
For most part, the iPhone haters simply don't get the point of Apple. Why Apple makes the products the way they do. They have been brainwashed by other companies throwing in technology galore into their products. What is the point of adding even more technology if the current technology in the product isn't easy to use? You're just going to confuse the crap out of your customer base. That is where Apple steps in. Apple takes the technology and makes it easier to use. So Apple doesn't always use the latest and greatest stuff in their products. Look at the original Mac. Nothing really new in there hardware wise. But, it changed how we used a computer. Fast forward to 2001 when the iPod was introduced. It was just another HD based MP3 player. Had nothing the competition. The iPod did what the other MP3 players could do. Yet, what made the iPod revolutionary was the way we navigated through an MP3 player and how we used it overall( the iTunes/iPod integration for example). It was easy to use and put music on it.
PS: If we bought everything Apple made why didn't the Newton and Cube sell well?
iGary
Sep 25, 06:27 PM
I have an experiment for those that say "It runs fine on my <insert computer here>."
Open up (in full screen mode) a landscape oriented RAW image and:
1. Use the straightening tool.
2. Try to rotate it 180.
3. Use the patch tool.
Let us know what you find.
Thanks!
Open up (in full screen mode) a landscape oriented RAW image and:
1. Use the straightening tool.
2. Try to rotate it 180.
3. Use the patch tool.
Let us know what you find.
Thanks!
nimasm
Jan 15, 02:44 PM
zimtheinvader you're right: MBA does not compare favourably to other products available. Thinness is a nice quality, and indeed it gives that premium edge to the MBA that other UMPCs lack, but Apple's seeming need to give you a full-featured, full-screen, full-clock speed computer is contrary to the needs of ultraportability. While I don't begrudge the Core 2 processor, nor the ample RAM, I can't say that a 13.3" widescreen is essential. (Indeed, if you're aiming for portability, then the dinosaur 4:3 format offers a greater ratio of screen area to overall dimensions).
I recently had the opportunity to borrow an Asus Eee PC, and was blown away by the advantages of its form factor. It was solidly built, confidence inspring, yet portable. The MBA makes me worry about potential flimsiness. How will it compared to a Macbook if bashed in the centre of the lid. The Eee PC, while slow and cramped, at least has rigidity
Moreover, do people really want to pay more for a compromised solution? Compare the Eee PC at �200. Now I don't wish to say that the Eee PC is something Apple should have produced, but in almost every respect it is in the right direction. It's smaller in the correct sense (reducing the greater dimensions first), sturdier, cheaper. Asus have done a fantastic job of this, and I don't doubt that Apple could have done it even better. How about a 10-12" screen, make it thin if you really must, but make it cheap, and drop pretentions of selling people a widescreen video-editing 'supercomputer'?
With my cursory memory of the MBA's features, I can't think of a single argument other than a need to have the latest thing for the MBA over the top of the range Macbook, a notebook which I subjectively think looks more attractive, too.
What consumers would go for would be more portability, more affordability, at the expense of screen real estate and ultimate performance. What have given us is equal portability, a lot less affordability, and less performance.
I recently had the opportunity to borrow an Asus Eee PC, and was blown away by the advantages of its form factor. It was solidly built, confidence inspring, yet portable. The MBA makes me worry about potential flimsiness. How will it compared to a Macbook if bashed in the centre of the lid. The Eee PC, while slow and cramped, at least has rigidity
Moreover, do people really want to pay more for a compromised solution? Compare the Eee PC at �200. Now I don't wish to say that the Eee PC is something Apple should have produced, but in almost every respect it is in the right direction. It's smaller in the correct sense (reducing the greater dimensions first), sturdier, cheaper. Asus have done a fantastic job of this, and I don't doubt that Apple could have done it even better. How about a 10-12" screen, make it thin if you really must, but make it cheap, and drop pretentions of selling people a widescreen video-editing 'supercomputer'?
With my cursory memory of the MBA's features, I can't think of a single argument other than a need to have the latest thing for the MBA over the top of the range Macbook, a notebook which I subjectively think looks more attractive, too.
What consumers would go for would be more portability, more affordability, at the expense of screen real estate and ultimate performance. What have given us is equal portability, a lot less affordability, and less performance.
Choppaface
Oct 4, 09:45 PM
Apple needs to start working on a new business model while the studios are still suing their customers and the TV boom is still on. If they dont they're going to be beaten overseas. Enough with the legal rhetoric damn it, evolve your business model or you'll lose.
sososowhat
Sep 28, 06:52 PM
Larry Ellison's's place on Mountain Home Rd, also in Woodside, is an unbelievable extravagance -- quite the opposite of Jobs'. http://articles.sfgate.com/2001-03-27/news/17591051_1_hot-tub-pond-tons
I believe the place is built entirely without nails, using old Japanese techniques. He brought in 3750 tons of hand-chisled granite, and 5000 tons of boulders, and moved 81,000 cubic yards of earth for his estate. I haven't been in, but it's intriguing from the gate-house.
-- Bridges and pathways lead to a teahouse, moon pavilion, guesthouse, bridge house, boathouse, barn and "Katsura house," a made-in-Japan near replica of a famous teahouse built as part of a royal compound of the same name in Kyoto, Japan, in the early 1600s.
-- The project: Transform 23 acres in Woodside into Japanese-style imperial villa with 10 hand-crafted buildings, bridges, manicured gardens, ponds, waterfalls and islands.
-- Price tag: Reportedly approaching $100 million, up from $40 million estimate in 1996, with two years to go.
Jobs' current place in Palo Alto is similarly modest to his new one -- though a little less private: You can often see him inside, and occasionally picking apples in the yard.
I believe the place is built entirely without nails, using old Japanese techniques. He brought in 3750 tons of hand-chisled granite, and 5000 tons of boulders, and moved 81,000 cubic yards of earth for his estate. I haven't been in, but it's intriguing from the gate-house.
-- Bridges and pathways lead to a teahouse, moon pavilion, guesthouse, bridge house, boathouse, barn and "Katsura house," a made-in-Japan near replica of a famous teahouse built as part of a royal compound of the same name in Kyoto, Japan, in the early 1600s.
-- The project: Transform 23 acres in Woodside into Japanese-style imperial villa with 10 hand-crafted buildings, bridges, manicured gardens, ponds, waterfalls and islands.
-- Price tag: Reportedly approaching $100 million, up from $40 million estimate in 1996, with two years to go.
Jobs' current place in Palo Alto is similarly modest to his new one -- though a little less private: You can often see him inside, and occasionally picking apples in the yard.
mochacian
Apr 5, 09:10 PM
I have to say, this is the dumbest idea I've ever seen come out of Cupertino. Even worse than the Newton.
I feel sorry for the tools who download this.
I'm one if the "tools" that downloaded it. I appreciate you feeling sorry for me but I don't need it if I'm downloading apps from an iOS device. I need it if I'm in Japan or anyone of the people affected by tragedy ruining there life. Please feel sorry for them and maybe donate $5 to the relief efforts.
I feel sorry for the tools who download this.
I'm one if the "tools" that downloaded it. I appreciate you feeling sorry for me but I don't need it if I'm downloading apps from an iOS device. I need it if I'm in Japan or anyone of the people affected by tragedy ruining there life. Please feel sorry for them and maybe donate $5 to the relief efforts.
rva1
Jul 27, 02:08 PM
Chevrolet announced the Volt will be priced at $41,000 before tax credits. You can choose to lease it for $350/month.
http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/f70/its-official-chevrolet-volt-41-000-chevrolet-begins-taking-orders-94080/
The Nissan Leaf list for about $25k to $26k and is an ALL electric vehicle. GM better get their head out of the sand.
http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/f70/its-official-chevrolet-volt-41-000-chevrolet-begins-taking-orders-94080/
The Nissan Leaf list for about $25k to $26k and is an ALL electric vehicle. GM better get their head out of the sand.
heehee
Apr 29, 02:32 PM
Please make iOS more like OS X, not the other way around.
The reason why I won't buy an ipad is because of iOS.
The reason why I won't buy an ipad is because of iOS.
No comments:
Post a Comment