snebes
Apr 23, 06:24 PM
The T-Mobile deal isn't a for sure thing. Likely, but the FTC could block it. Also, as the article states T-Mobile's towers use a different frequencies.
That doesn't mean that Apple wouldn't be testing handset for them now. Just being an optimist. If AT&T/T-Mobile purchase does go through, it doesn't mean that T-Mobiles 2G/3G network goes away. It will be around for many more years. AT&T may require their handsets to support the T-Mobile 3G bands as well as their own.
That doesn't mean that Apple wouldn't be testing handset for them now. Just being an optimist. If AT&T/T-Mobile purchase does go through, it doesn't mean that T-Mobiles 2G/3G network goes away. It will be around for many more years. AT&T may require their handsets to support the T-Mobile 3G bands as well as their own.
goobot
May 4, 08:54 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
The rep is just lazy and didn't want to give a real answer.
The rep is just lazy and didn't want to give a real answer.
ouimetnick
Apr 29, 03:58 PM
Ha. I still buy CDs and import them in full quality (AIFF)
zap2
Apr 17, 11:35 PM
To the poster above me, Apple has been know to downgrade some specs for an "upgrade" and in this case, Intel is forcing there hand. If they want to move onto the i5 chips, they can't used nVidia's GPU which is rated better then Intel built in solution. And since there aren't any other integrated solutions and the Air doesn't have room for a dedicated card, it will likely end up like the 13'' MBP, losing some graphic performance.
Users will need to decided if GPU power or CPU power is more important after this new upgrade, alone with price, as the current MBA will likely drop.
As a current MPA owner, I'm glad Apple is finally moving away from the Core 2 Duo's they have been on for so long. Heck I could upgrade my Mac Mini which was my first Mac from 2006 and I'd have a Core 2 Duo, not quite as new of a C2D and the GPU would be greatly lacking, but I can still upgrade if I want.
But once Apple jumps to Sandy Bridge, even if for a generation of Macs we lose graphic performance, we'll make it up with Ivy Bridge and our CPUs will be more powerful. Plus PC specs won't seem so far ahead.
Although I was shopping for a PC for a department at the University I work for and finding a GPU in a PC that worked with their rendering software was rather hard. PC makers just don't care about GPUs as much as they used to.
Users will need to decided if GPU power or CPU power is more important after this new upgrade, alone with price, as the current MBA will likely drop.
As a current MPA owner, I'm glad Apple is finally moving away from the Core 2 Duo's they have been on for so long. Heck I could upgrade my Mac Mini which was my first Mac from 2006 and I'd have a Core 2 Duo, not quite as new of a C2D and the GPU would be greatly lacking, but I can still upgrade if I want.
But once Apple jumps to Sandy Bridge, even if for a generation of Macs we lose graphic performance, we'll make it up with Ivy Bridge and our CPUs will be more powerful. Plus PC specs won't seem so far ahead.
Although I was shopping for a PC for a department at the University I work for and finding a GPU in a PC that worked with their rendering software was rather hard. PC makers just don't care about GPUs as much as they used to.
Mac-Addict
Oct 24, 09:20 AM
I'm taking the plunge as well! Who needs a life savings anyway?
and why shouldn't I be in debt to my parents until christmas 07 :) (I have a crap paying weekend job..)
and why shouldn't I be in debt to my parents until christmas 07 :) (I have a crap paying weekend job..)
CalBoy
Jan 26, 01:22 AM
The ticker is AAPL, and it's traded on Nasdaq, not NYSE.
Actually Nasdaq is an index, not a trading cite. The NYSE is an exchange (much like one we'd find in London, Tokyo, etc). What Apple is not listed under is the Dow 30 (commonly referred to only as "the Dow" or "Dow Jones Industrial Average"), which lists the 30 largest companies of the US based on industry and importance (current ones include WalMart, GE, CitiGroup, etc).
Actually Nasdaq is an index, not a trading cite. The NYSE is an exchange (much like one we'd find in London, Tokyo, etc). What Apple is not listed under is the Dow 30 (commonly referred to only as "the Dow" or "Dow Jones Industrial Average"), which lists the 30 largest companies of the US based on industry and importance (current ones include WalMart, GE, CitiGroup, etc).
zenvision
Oct 24, 08:07 AM
FINALLY!
ordering a 2.33ghz/2gb ram/160gb hd/matte 15.4"
been waiting since july for this :D
ordering a 2.33ghz/2gb ram/160gb hd/matte 15.4"
been waiting since july for this :D
alexf
Oct 18, 07:20 PM
To wit, the iPod is not Apple's "cash cow". By definition, if there is something that gains more revenue/profit than the iPod, then the iPod cannot be the cash cow. 58% of Apple's revenue still came from sales of Macs. Gross margins for both Macs and iPods has always been similar (hovering a bit below 30%), so the Mac also generates the majority of the profit for Apple.
Why, my friend, do you think that a "cash cow" has to be the thing that gains the most revenue/profit? Not sure what dictionary you're using; please let me know.
Why, my friend, do you think that a "cash cow" has to be the thing that gains the most revenue/profit? Not sure what dictionary you're using; please let me know.
DTphonehome
Apr 13, 08:39 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
No brown?????
Brown is the new white is the new black. As evidenced by the raging success of the brown zune.
No brown?????
Brown is the new white is the new black. As evidenced by the raging success of the brown zune.
ruzz1141
Apr 15, 06:17 AM
Can anyone confirm if the battery life has improved?
Unfortunately, no! My wife's 3GS lost 33% overnight after a full charge :(
I just did the normal update. Next I am going to try to just install 4.3.2 and setup as new and not restore any data and see if stock install still has issue to rule out some corrupt setting/data.
Unfortunately, no! My wife's 3GS lost 33% overnight after a full charge :(
I just did the normal update. Next I am going to try to just install 4.3.2 and setup as new and not restore any data and see if stock install still has issue to rule out some corrupt setting/data.
TBR
Oct 24, 07:46 AM
If the prices havn't changed as mentioned above then this may make some people who were thinking of getting macbooks justify paying the extra for the pro, it seems more worth while now. I was in that position in june but I went for the Macbook.
cleanup
Sep 13, 02:37 PM
Go there. The Bier Markt was one of my regular stomps when I used to live in Toronto. Actually, I used to live a few minutes away, in a condo right by the St. Lawrence Market.
If they carry Blue Moon, try that one too.
My girlfriend and I have tried to stop by on a few occasions but it's always enormously packed when we go (our own fault for only being in the area on Friday & Saturday nights) and we end up going to Corner Bar up the street instead. But it's definitely at the top of my to-do-soon list. :)
If they carry Blue Moon, try that one too.
My girlfriend and I have tried to stop by on a few occasions but it's always enormously packed when we go (our own fault for only being in the area on Friday & Saturday nights) and we end up going to Corner Bar up the street instead. But it's definitely at the top of my to-do-soon list. :)
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.
jiminaus
May 3, 08:16 AM
expensive, why not go MBP + nice LED Screen + SSD?
MBP doesn't have a fast enough GPU. I use my iMac primarily for development. Need raw GHz, not so much multiple-cores.
if you are selling 24", it will go for dirt
Won't sell it. It'll be handed down to family.
MBP doesn't have a fast enough GPU. I use my iMac primarily for development. Need raw GHz, not so much multiple-cores.
if you are selling 24", it will go for dirt
Won't sell it. It'll be handed down to family.
kalsta
Apr 26, 09:44 AM
I think Matte would be good, but you can just go buy a film and apply it quite easily so thats not a show stopper for me, however I have read it can lose some clarity so a factory applied option would be better.
And now you have two additional layers for light from the display to pass through — the arbitrary sheet of glass AND the diffusing film. It's not a real solution.
If I had to guess, I'd say there are three likely reasons Apple went all out gloss:
1. Impressive in-store displays. Colours look punchier when compared to a matte display, and that appeals to many buyers evidently.
2. The new black-bordered aesthetics made popular by the iPhone, iPod touch and now the iPad. This gives Apple's modern product line a look of consistency. Again, it's about appearances, not practicalities.
3. So they can talk about recyclable materials like aluminium and yep… glass. But again, it's all about appearances. Anyone really serious about sustainable living knows that the first, and arguably most important, of the three R's is REDUCE. The glass may be essential on a touch screen device, but it is completely unnecessary on a desktop or laptop display.
And now you have two additional layers for light from the display to pass through — the arbitrary sheet of glass AND the diffusing film. It's not a real solution.
If I had to guess, I'd say there are three likely reasons Apple went all out gloss:
1. Impressive in-store displays. Colours look punchier when compared to a matte display, and that appeals to many buyers evidently.
2. The new black-bordered aesthetics made popular by the iPhone, iPod touch and now the iPad. This gives Apple's modern product line a look of consistency. Again, it's about appearances, not practicalities.
3. So they can talk about recyclable materials like aluminium and yep… glass. But again, it's all about appearances. Anyone really serious about sustainable living knows that the first, and arguably most important, of the three R's is REDUCE. The glass may be essential on a touch screen device, but it is completely unnecessary on a desktop or laptop display.
840quadra
Dec 1, 03:09 PM
Of course, and I meant that in the 'general sense'. I have long since abandoned the use of Classic on any of my OS X Macs or any of the Macs I support. AppleTalk is so deprecated that I can hardly believe that anyone will be able to use it much longer. In fact, I wouldn't be shocked if it was completely absent from 10.5.
Yeah I don't use classic on my OS X systems at all. I am actually referring to enabling it for network communication with my Quadra 840av, LC 575, and other older systems that I boot into system 7 or even OS 8. Granted the need for Appletalk in those situations can be substituted for TCP/IP, AT appears to be more stable with those older systems.
Which makes it even MORE odd that it's enabled by default in MacTels, which don't run Classic. :confused:
I just checked my MacBook, and found that it too is enabled! Strange indeed!
Yeah I don't use classic on my OS X systems at all. I am actually referring to enabling it for network communication with my Quadra 840av, LC 575, and other older systems that I boot into system 7 or even OS 8. Granted the need for Appletalk in those situations can be substituted for TCP/IP, AT appears to be more stable with those older systems.
Which makes it even MORE odd that it's enabled by default in MacTels, which don't run Classic. :confused:
I just checked my MacBook, and found that it too is enabled! Strange indeed!
yojitani
Mar 3, 09:30 PM
Is Charlie Sheen a comedian? Is he talented? No. But he does appear to have an emotional health issue that could destroy him.
ratzzo
Apr 23, 06:54 PM
The more carriers with iPhone reach, the better. Competition only benefits us, the customers.
illegalprelude
Dec 3, 03:36 AM
How do you know they are not on it? You don't right? The source of these reports is the people who want to sell you their security software. They capitalize on our fear. The author notes he spent most of his time on Mac and Linux. Very little time was spent on Windows/Vista. Well, that makes sense if you are trying to sell software. Everyone already installs it on Windows. No sales opportunities there. So, go scare yourself a new market with the people who do not need it. It even works better if you can create some mistrust amongst the user base. Just plant the seeds of doubt the manufacturers are unwilling, or unable to protect them. You are their savior.
I do not have a Pollyanna view on this. I have no doubts that threats exist and an aggressive, on-going effort is crucial. But, the real solution is to fight this crime with the seriousness it deserves. That means mandatory prison sentences, equal liability for facilitation and for profiteering, etc.
dear lord, thank you! somebody else with some common sense. Its like all different repots come out about anything related and people go up in arms about it but never pay attention to who did the research. Just because its "published" does it somehow make it fact? What did the publisher have to gain from this? More so then often, you will note that the report that came out that says "chewing gum premotes healthy teeth" is indeed sponsered and funded and done by Stride Gum. Surprise! Same in this case, lets premote a few security flaws and every single news site will pick up on it by 3 days and bam, now we can advertise our Antivirus. :rolleyes:
I do not have a Pollyanna view on this. I have no doubts that threats exist and an aggressive, on-going effort is crucial. But, the real solution is to fight this crime with the seriousness it deserves. That means mandatory prison sentences, equal liability for facilitation and for profiteering, etc.
dear lord, thank you! somebody else with some common sense. Its like all different repots come out about anything related and people go up in arms about it but never pay attention to who did the research. Just because its "published" does it somehow make it fact? What did the publisher have to gain from this? More so then often, you will note that the report that came out that says "chewing gum premotes healthy teeth" is indeed sponsered and funded and done by Stride Gum. Surprise! Same in this case, lets premote a few security flaws and every single news site will pick up on it by 3 days and bam, now we can advertise our Antivirus. :rolleyes:
JAT
Apr 25, 10:15 AM
why do people believe this is possible? Apple will not allow one carrier to undersell the other on the SAME DEVICE...just won't happen it's bad for sales...which is why there is no competition between AT&T and Verizon...similar plans on voice text and data...otherwise everyone would play carrier swap every few month to get the best deal...if Tmobile gets the iPhone while still independent from AT&T you better believe you won't get unlimited everything for 70 bucks
Why wouldn't it be possible? Apple in no way dictates the plan pricing, just the hardware pricing. (although I believe they have fought for better data pricing, and mostly been ignored by ATT on that) Tmob is clearly cheaper in most standard calling plans. Data is the same price, more or less (the GB limits can differ), across all carriers, so that's not in question. Text plans are pretty similar, too. It's the phone plans that differ.
For instance, the base family plan from Tmob is $50, $60 from ATT and Verizon.
Not to mention that Sprint does offer unlimited everything for a single line for $70. That is for any smartphone, some of which cost more than the iPhone, so why would the iPhone change that part of the pricing?
Why wouldn't it be possible? Apple in no way dictates the plan pricing, just the hardware pricing. (although I believe they have fought for better data pricing, and mostly been ignored by ATT on that) Tmob is clearly cheaper in most standard calling plans. Data is the same price, more or less (the GB limits can differ), across all carriers, so that's not in question. Text plans are pretty similar, too. It's the phone plans that differ.
For instance, the base family plan from Tmob is $50, $60 from ATT and Verizon.
Not to mention that Sprint does offer unlimited everything for a single line for $70. That is for any smartphone, some of which cost more than the iPhone, so why would the iPhone change that part of the pricing?
acslater017
Apr 11, 01:26 PM
Thunderbolt looks pretty sweet for high-end applications, but I really hope that Apple doesn't try to push this standard INSTEAD of USB 3.0. Future hardware refreshes need to get BOTH of these plugs. As cool as Thunderbolt looks, I'm looking around on my desk and EVERYTHING is USB - my iPhone (OK, I'm sure they will make an adapter for that), my camera, my hard drive, my flash drive, even my PS3 controller.
That, and lack of FaceTime connectivity, concern me.
That, and lack of FaceTime connectivity, concern me.
kolargol
Apr 14, 03:24 PM
It hasn't been fixed.
well it's kinda weird - ip4 is fast enought to have NO animation problems. This started exacly the same as 3G problems on iOS3.x.
In a few months we all know that ip4 is too slow, too old and we would need to switch to ip5 :/
it is sad to see that Apple don't care about performance anymore...
well it's kinda weird - ip4 is fast enought to have NO animation problems. This started exacly the same as 3G problems on iOS3.x.
In a few months we all know that ip4 is too slow, too old and we would need to switch to ip5 :/
it is sad to see that Apple don't care about performance anymore...
ten-oak-druid
Apr 13, 02:14 PM
This is a false rumor. Absolutely no way will this happen.
First of all Google failed with their TV.
Second of all, it is much better to have the components separate. You can more easily pass the audio to a home entertainment system for surround sound. With a component built into the TV, you have cables going back in the other direction to the receiver. If audio and video both take the same path there is less change of them getting out of sync.
First of all Google failed with their TV.
Second of all, it is much better to have the components separate. You can more easily pass the audio to a home entertainment system for surround sound. With a component built into the TV, you have cables going back in the other direction to the receiver. If audio and video both take the same path there is less change of them getting out of sync.
mandis
Apr 13, 04:55 PM
It will probably cost twice the price of the equivalent LG/Samsung and at first will only offer half the features.:rolleyes: