DeathChill
Apr 23, 12:27 AM
So many people just love to see every issue from the Apple perspective. There are people who get paid for that. Should not you - as a consumer - care more about the gadget you want than Apple success?
You enjoy seeing every issue from the perspective of someone who wants Apple to fail.
Apple cares very deeply about their product, which is why they don't give in to every spec junkie who demands the latest and greatest immediately. The current chips don't give a usable battery life in Apple's eyes. If you want to get a phone that eats batteries that's your business, but Apple doesn't have an interest in developing anything like that.
Apple does not have to use two chips. They could just design separate phone for Verizon (just like iPhone 4) which does not support GSM. Not ideal but that's where technology is today. At least Verizon customers could enjoy iPhone 5 with LTE.
They would still have to use two chips as I understand it: one to support CDMA and then the other to support LTE.
You enjoy seeing every issue from the perspective of someone who wants Apple to fail.
Apple cares very deeply about their product, which is why they don't give in to every spec junkie who demands the latest and greatest immediately. The current chips don't give a usable battery life in Apple's eyes. If you want to get a phone that eats batteries that's your business, but Apple doesn't have an interest in developing anything like that.
Apple does not have to use two chips. They could just design separate phone for Verizon (just like iPhone 4) which does not support GSM. Not ideal but that's where technology is today. At least Verizon customers could enjoy iPhone 5 with LTE.
They would still have to use two chips as I understand it: one to support CDMA and then the other to support LTE.
doctorossi
Apr 14, 01:07 PM
When is the Verizon iPhone going to get the 4.3 love?
I doubt it will. I'm expecting parity to arrive with 5.0.
I doubt it will. I'm expecting parity to arrive with 5.0.
minnesotamacman
Oct 19, 07:55 AM
As always, the iPod is Apple's real cash cow.
Too bad for those of us who wish they would divert a little more of their attention to their computer line.
Did I not see that 58% of the revenue came from the computers? How does this make the iPod the cash cow?
Too bad for those of us who wish they would divert a little more of their attention to their computer line.
Did I not see that 58% of the revenue came from the computers? How does this make the iPod the cash cow?
Damtoft
Apr 22, 04:31 PM
yuk, looks awfull :eek:, I highly doubt its gonna look like that
KnightWRX
Dec 30, 10:43 PM
Under normal circumstances, you're more or less right.
No, I'm 100% right. Weight control is about calories. End of story. Calories in < Calories out and you lose weight. Opposite and you gain weight. There's no more or less here, that is the very basic premise. You want to discuss specifics that affect calories in/calories out, but that's flawed. Teach people the base first, and let them balance themselves out. You can very easily test your metabolic rate.
However, many supersize people have participated in crash diets, drugs and other questionable regimens over the years in search of quick-fix thinness. Doing so can, after a while, sabotage the body's normal metabolic rate and endocrine output, making it much harder for these people to find the balance in their caloric equation without depriving themselves of needed micronutrients (vitamins, minerals).
So you're saying these people have abnormally low "Calories out". It still comes down to that very simple equation. These people first have to fix their calories out, get their metabolism back straight, then they can fix their calories in.
It is that easy to lose weight. People don't know this very simple and basic concept, they think "Fat/Sugar" has to do with weight, which is completely false. "Low Saturated Fat!" on a box of cookies means squat if the cookies are 170 calories for 3 vs 180 calories for 3 of the same cookies with normal saturated fat. You still can't eat the whole box in one sitting and think "hey, it's low fat, I can't gain weight from this".
You'd be surprised how many people think this way.
I don't have a dog in this fight, but the question that runs through my mind is: if it's so easy, why do people struggle with it? Why are there entire industries built around people that struggle with losing weight on their own?
People struggle because like someone pointed out, they lack willpower and I'll add that they lack education. Calorie control is the only way to lose weight. There's seriously no other way, since weight is based off of calories and calories alone. To lose weight, you need a calorie deficiency. To be more precise, 3500 calories = 1 lbs, each way. So you need to create a calorie deficiency of 3500 calories before you lose 1 lbs. My metabolic rate is around 1740, that's what I burn each day without lifting a finger. Add in my normal routine, and I'm around the magic 2000 calorie diet. Let's not add in my gym routine. So to lose 1 lbs in 7 days, I need to go on a 1500 calorie diet per day. That's going to give me a deficiency of 500 per day, times 7 days, 1 lbs lost.
There's entire industries because they profit from it. Some people like to buy "instant" solutions. 1 lbs in 7 days ? Bah humbug, too long, I have 100 to lose! There's no instant solutions to weight loss, quite the contrary, the entire weight loss industry makes money by keeping people fat and coming back for miracle cures. Their proposed plans of "1 shake/bar for breakfeast, same for lunch and a balanced diner" is awful. First, it should be the opposite, a good breakfeast and then their bars/shakes for lunch and diner. Breakfeast is where you get your day's energy. Second, that's not calorie control since it doesn't explain that it is trying to create a calorie deficit. So people just still overeat, they compensate the calories they didn't eat at breakfeast/lunch with a huge "balanced" diner.
I'm going to just assume you are young and have time on your hands. Because when I was young and had time staying trim was quite easy., Let's talk when you're in your 30's and are a busy professional :rolleyes:
I'm 32, work 35 hours per week in IT (sitting down on my ass), am on call with tons of pages coming in once every 2 weeks. I have a girlfriend, a mortgage and a dog.
Again, staying trim has nothing to do with having time or being busy or not. If you spend less calories, eat less calories. Balance your calories in to your calories out and you'll stay trim. Sure it means doing a bit more research into what you're eating, but that's not impossible. It also means listening to your body. Feeling "stuffed" means you overate. You should never feel full or stuffed. A donut is not faster to mow down than an Apple. It's not more filling either. It's tons more calories though.
You made an assumption about me and you were wrong. You should look at yourself and what you are or aren't doing that is making you fat, not make up excuses.
look. I'm not trying to make excuses. I'm not THAT out of shape. I do bikram yoga 4 times per week and walk a lot. I just can't be as extensive about it as I was in my youthful years. I'm very healthy but I do need to drop 20ish lbs. per doctors orders. I've completely cut out any sugar drinks other than water and a few organic smoothies and an occaional glass of wine here and there. But at my age and with my busy schedule it's just not as easy as it was when I was 25. Not an excuse, just a simple fact.
But again, it's just because you don't understand your caloric need for a day and you either overeat or eat just the right amount to maintain your weight. You don't even need to exercise to create a calorie deficiency. I think you're the perfect example of what I'm talking about, you don't understand the very basic concept, which has nothing to do with time spent, but rather food ingested.
People need to get it out of their heads that it is about exercise. It's 10% working out, 90% food. Get your nutrition right and you won't need to exercise a day in your life. If you want to get fit however, make sure to balance your nutrition around your added caloric need to not drop weight too fast or at all if your goal is maintaining.
No, I'm 100% right. Weight control is about calories. End of story. Calories in < Calories out and you lose weight. Opposite and you gain weight. There's no more or less here, that is the very basic premise. You want to discuss specifics that affect calories in/calories out, but that's flawed. Teach people the base first, and let them balance themselves out. You can very easily test your metabolic rate.
However, many supersize people have participated in crash diets, drugs and other questionable regimens over the years in search of quick-fix thinness. Doing so can, after a while, sabotage the body's normal metabolic rate and endocrine output, making it much harder for these people to find the balance in their caloric equation without depriving themselves of needed micronutrients (vitamins, minerals).
So you're saying these people have abnormally low "Calories out". It still comes down to that very simple equation. These people first have to fix their calories out, get their metabolism back straight, then they can fix their calories in.
It is that easy to lose weight. People don't know this very simple and basic concept, they think "Fat/Sugar" has to do with weight, which is completely false. "Low Saturated Fat!" on a box of cookies means squat if the cookies are 170 calories for 3 vs 180 calories for 3 of the same cookies with normal saturated fat. You still can't eat the whole box in one sitting and think "hey, it's low fat, I can't gain weight from this".
You'd be surprised how many people think this way.
I don't have a dog in this fight, but the question that runs through my mind is: if it's so easy, why do people struggle with it? Why are there entire industries built around people that struggle with losing weight on their own?
People struggle because like someone pointed out, they lack willpower and I'll add that they lack education. Calorie control is the only way to lose weight. There's seriously no other way, since weight is based off of calories and calories alone. To lose weight, you need a calorie deficiency. To be more precise, 3500 calories = 1 lbs, each way. So you need to create a calorie deficiency of 3500 calories before you lose 1 lbs. My metabolic rate is around 1740, that's what I burn each day without lifting a finger. Add in my normal routine, and I'm around the magic 2000 calorie diet. Let's not add in my gym routine. So to lose 1 lbs in 7 days, I need to go on a 1500 calorie diet per day. That's going to give me a deficiency of 500 per day, times 7 days, 1 lbs lost.
There's entire industries because they profit from it. Some people like to buy "instant" solutions. 1 lbs in 7 days ? Bah humbug, too long, I have 100 to lose! There's no instant solutions to weight loss, quite the contrary, the entire weight loss industry makes money by keeping people fat and coming back for miracle cures. Their proposed plans of "1 shake/bar for breakfeast, same for lunch and a balanced diner" is awful. First, it should be the opposite, a good breakfeast and then their bars/shakes for lunch and diner. Breakfeast is where you get your day's energy. Second, that's not calorie control since it doesn't explain that it is trying to create a calorie deficit. So people just still overeat, they compensate the calories they didn't eat at breakfeast/lunch with a huge "balanced" diner.
I'm going to just assume you are young and have time on your hands. Because when I was young and had time staying trim was quite easy., Let's talk when you're in your 30's and are a busy professional :rolleyes:
I'm 32, work 35 hours per week in IT (sitting down on my ass), am on call with tons of pages coming in once every 2 weeks. I have a girlfriend, a mortgage and a dog.
Again, staying trim has nothing to do with having time or being busy or not. If you spend less calories, eat less calories. Balance your calories in to your calories out and you'll stay trim. Sure it means doing a bit more research into what you're eating, but that's not impossible. It also means listening to your body. Feeling "stuffed" means you overate. You should never feel full or stuffed. A donut is not faster to mow down than an Apple. It's not more filling either. It's tons more calories though.
You made an assumption about me and you were wrong. You should look at yourself and what you are or aren't doing that is making you fat, not make up excuses.
look. I'm not trying to make excuses. I'm not THAT out of shape. I do bikram yoga 4 times per week and walk a lot. I just can't be as extensive about it as I was in my youthful years. I'm very healthy but I do need to drop 20ish lbs. per doctors orders. I've completely cut out any sugar drinks other than water and a few organic smoothies and an occaional glass of wine here and there. But at my age and with my busy schedule it's just not as easy as it was when I was 25. Not an excuse, just a simple fact.
But again, it's just because you don't understand your caloric need for a day and you either overeat or eat just the right amount to maintain your weight. You don't even need to exercise to create a calorie deficiency. I think you're the perfect example of what I'm talking about, you don't understand the very basic concept, which has nothing to do with time spent, but rather food ingested.
People need to get it out of their heads that it is about exercise. It's 10% working out, 90% food. Get your nutrition right and you won't need to exercise a day in your life. If you want to get fit however, make sure to balance your nutrition around your added caloric need to not drop weight too fast or at all if your goal is maintaining.
andiwm2003
Jun 6, 11:11 AM
'Eleven-year-old "Accidentally" Downloads $1000 App' more like, the kid blatantly knew what he was doing, you can't accidentally buy something, he clicked 'buy', what was he expecting to happen...
Gee, do you have any idea how easy it is to click the wrong thing on an iPhone or iPod touch?
They probably had one click enabled and the kid checked out the most expensive app and accidentally clicked buy.
Can happen.
Gee, do you have any idea how easy it is to click the wrong thing on an iPhone or iPod touch?
They probably had one click enabled and the kid checked out the most expensive app and accidentally clicked buy.
Can happen.
Zonz
Dec 31, 05:29 PM
And yours about me weren't ? Look, I made my presumptions based on some facts you posted :
- Too busy to work out (which isn't an issue for weight control)
- Having to lose weight (Doctor's orders)
- Thinking Yoga is an effective weight control.
- No mention of food.
I made a presumption that you don't understand the basic premise of weight control. I hope my post at least opened up your eyes and you can go from there to learn what works for you, with your busy schedule, instead of thinking a busy schedule is a reason to stay the way you are.
It's her choice up to a point. There's nothing wrong with 20 lbs overweight, give or take a few. Doctors will always tell you to be in the "zone" (healthy weight with a BMI between 18-25) but mostly there isn't much harm until later in life. Just like there's nothing wrong with taking fast food in reasonable quantities, or smoking if done occasionally.
However, what she is doing is not just affecting her and her family. Morbid obesity affects all of society, be it through requiring services reserved for the disabled (she's not really disabled, she just chooses to be). The problem, like in all things bad for you (fast food, alcohol, smoking, drugs, whatever) is not occasional use, it's abuse. This woman has an abusive food consumption. Your examples are wrong because they try to equate what she is doing with what people are doing within reason. Your list should have been more :
- Alcoholics should be able to stay that way! There's nothing wrong with 2 glasses of gin to wake up
- 3 packs a day of smokes is perfectly fine!
- Gambling all your money away and then borrowing some to gamble more is a person's choice!
- You can never have enough Crystal Meth.
The fact is, these are abusive tendencies which stem from deeper problems or addictions.
BTW, I run about 5 km, 5 days a week. I ski (doing mostly Park, so climbing uphill on foot dragging my equipment), I do weight lifting too. I think I can sit and post on Macrumors a few times :D
Thank you for presenting a reasonable argument, it seems very few people on blogging websites can actually respond without feeling personal injustice. So yes, I pretty much agree with you. My comment was more directed to the tone of this forum and not the information.
And the examples I gave were to point out that no one can truly draw that line between reasonable and abusive behavior. When does a casual drinker become an alcoholic? When does a gambler have a gambling problem? The definitions given by professionals change consistently, and people on this forum with absolutely no qualifications whatsoever feel so sure they know the answers that they need to berate a persons lifestyle. I'm not usually such a prude, but it really pissed me off.
Your a park skier. I used to be too. I could easily argue that the benefits of the entertainment of park skiing under-weigh the injuries sustained and the cost in medical bills. In fact I could say the same thing about any extreme sport. I'm paying for it in my taxes aren't I? So couldn't I berate you about what a menace to society you are?
(FYI I'm not attacking you, don't take offense, it's just an example.)
- Too busy to work out (which isn't an issue for weight control)
- Having to lose weight (Doctor's orders)
- Thinking Yoga is an effective weight control.
- No mention of food.
I made a presumption that you don't understand the basic premise of weight control. I hope my post at least opened up your eyes and you can go from there to learn what works for you, with your busy schedule, instead of thinking a busy schedule is a reason to stay the way you are.
It's her choice up to a point. There's nothing wrong with 20 lbs overweight, give or take a few. Doctors will always tell you to be in the "zone" (healthy weight with a BMI between 18-25) but mostly there isn't much harm until later in life. Just like there's nothing wrong with taking fast food in reasonable quantities, or smoking if done occasionally.
However, what she is doing is not just affecting her and her family. Morbid obesity affects all of society, be it through requiring services reserved for the disabled (she's not really disabled, she just chooses to be). The problem, like in all things bad for you (fast food, alcohol, smoking, drugs, whatever) is not occasional use, it's abuse. This woman has an abusive food consumption. Your examples are wrong because they try to equate what she is doing with what people are doing within reason. Your list should have been more :
- Alcoholics should be able to stay that way! There's nothing wrong with 2 glasses of gin to wake up
- 3 packs a day of smokes is perfectly fine!
- Gambling all your money away and then borrowing some to gamble more is a person's choice!
- You can never have enough Crystal Meth.
The fact is, these are abusive tendencies which stem from deeper problems or addictions.
BTW, I run about 5 km, 5 days a week. I ski (doing mostly Park, so climbing uphill on foot dragging my equipment), I do weight lifting too. I think I can sit and post on Macrumors a few times :D
Thank you for presenting a reasonable argument, it seems very few people on blogging websites can actually respond without feeling personal injustice. So yes, I pretty much agree with you. My comment was more directed to the tone of this forum and not the information.
And the examples I gave were to point out that no one can truly draw that line between reasonable and abusive behavior. When does a casual drinker become an alcoholic? When does a gambler have a gambling problem? The definitions given by professionals change consistently, and people on this forum with absolutely no qualifications whatsoever feel so sure they know the answers that they need to berate a persons lifestyle. I'm not usually such a prude, but it really pissed me off.
Your a park skier. I used to be too. I could easily argue that the benefits of the entertainment of park skiing under-weigh the injuries sustained and the cost in medical bills. In fact I could say the same thing about any extreme sport. I'm paying for it in my taxes aren't I? So couldn't I berate you about what a menace to society you are?
(FYI I'm not attacking you, don't take offense, it's just an example.)
trekkie604
Sep 12, 07:25 PM
Following the trend and tradition of our favorite series of threads...the "post your last purchase" threads, welcome to edition XIV!
Starting this off right! Links for Mods and other interested parties!
Post your last purchase (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=406860)
Post your last purchase II (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=450221)
Post your last purchase III (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=494787)
Post your last purchase IV (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=547632)
Post your last purchase V (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=591242)
Post your last purchase VI (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=631447)
Post your last purchase VII (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=672226)
Post your last purchase VIII (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=672226)
Post your last purchase IX (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=765588)
Post your last purchase X (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=805111)
Post your last purchase XI (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=842754)
Post your last purchase XII (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=884344&highlight=post+your+last+purchase+xii)
Post your last purchase XIII (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=944269&highlight=post+your+last+purchase+xii)
Go ahead and post your last purchase, and apparently original pictures are encouraged so we can see what you got!
And here my last purchase: Shaken green tea lemonade - I quit buying coffee from starbucks to reduce my sugar intake but I needed something to get from the coffee shop!
That thing has more sugar than a mocha FYI...
Starting this off right! Links for Mods and other interested parties!
Post your last purchase (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=406860)
Post your last purchase II (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=450221)
Post your last purchase III (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=494787)
Post your last purchase IV (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=547632)
Post your last purchase V (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=591242)
Post your last purchase VI (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=631447)
Post your last purchase VII (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=672226)
Post your last purchase VIII (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=672226)
Post your last purchase IX (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=765588)
Post your last purchase X (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=805111)
Post your last purchase XI (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=842754)
Post your last purchase XII (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=884344&highlight=post+your+last+purchase+xii)
Post your last purchase XIII (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=944269&highlight=post+your+last+purchase+xii)
Go ahead and post your last purchase, and apparently original pictures are encouraged so we can see what you got!
And here my last purchase: Shaken green tea lemonade - I quit buying coffee from starbucks to reduce my sugar intake but I needed something to get from the coffee shop!
That thing has more sugar than a mocha FYI...
morty192
May 2, 09:48 AM
it will most likely be tomorrow if as has been pointed out tonight is visual night, the online store will update sometime around 1pm UK time I imagine but the store should be down before then.
Of course if tonight is really visual night and u live close enough to an apple store make sure pop in at 9:30am your time and tell us all if anything has changed :)
Of course if tonight is really visual night and u live close enough to an apple store make sure pop in at 9:30am your time and tell us all if anything has changed :)
tristangage
Apr 2, 12:19 PM
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5267/5571543499_60a9266433.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tristangage/5571543499/)
choose your side. (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tristangage/5571543499/) by tristangage (http://www.flickr.com/people/tristangage/), on Flickr
Camera Canon EOS 500D
Exposure 0.017 sec (1/60)
Aperture f/5.0
Focal Length 24 mm
ISO Speed 100
choose your side. (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tristangage/5571543499/) by tristangage (http://www.flickr.com/people/tristangage/), on Flickr
Camera Canon EOS 500D
Exposure 0.017 sec (1/60)
Aperture f/5.0
Focal Length 24 mm
ISO Speed 100
KPOM
Apr 21, 02:06 PM
Which would be better for video editing -- the current MBA or the upcoming Sandy Bridge MBA? (just family videos, nothing hardcore)
Likely the Sandy Bridge. Editing uses CPU power.
Consider that the Sandy Bridge chip has several advantages over the Core 2 Duo:
The largest snake in the world
The largest prey item consumed
Anaconda Stalks World#39;s
The iggest anaconda of the world ( größte anaconda auf der welt :: Maroc Site video - موقع المغرب فيديو
the world#39;s largest – and
the world#39;s biggest snake
Green Anaconda (Eunectes
largest anaconda ever
Likely the Sandy Bridge. Editing uses CPU power.
Consider that the Sandy Bridge chip has several advantages over the Core 2 Duo:
BigBeast
May 3, 07:37 AM
6970!? Yes!
MattInOz
Apr 18, 09:03 PM
I'm not really sure what the point would be. If you lay a 17 or 20 inch Mac down on your lap, give it a touch screen, and modify the interface so it's more suited to the less precise input of fingers� haven't you just created a bigger iPad? (Not that a bigger iPad wouldn't have it's uses, but it wouldn't be a Mac, and I'd question whether it would warrant yet another 'marketing name'.
I suppose it's possible, as many presume, that Apple is looking to merge OS X and iOS, but it's never been that convincing of an argument to me. There are some real incompatibilities between the two in my mind. Many OS X apps demand the precision and unrestricted visibility that a keyboard and mouse give you, but once you're using a keyboard and mouse, the display has moved away from your fingers. A vertical display keeps it within reach, but humans just aren't suited to using a vertical touch screen for more than a few minutes, as Steve Jobs has himself remarked.
If the future were some kind of OS X / iOS hybrid, why did Apple invent iOS in the first place? Why not just go straight for this touchable OS X Nirvana if it exists? I suspect it doesn't exist, and Apple understood that a usable touchscreen interface has a unique set of requirements, benefits and limitations.
As for what this 'ix.Mac.MarketingName' is, I actually haven't a clue. It's somewhat intriguing though. It's kind of exciting to think that the inventive minds at Apple might be hatching some new kind of device. A little optimistic maybe, but who knows?
Was thinking more of a desktop touch screen device. Different from the iPad which wants to be picked up and used, but is workable on your lap. This mythical desktop touch device would still need to be light enough that you could lift it up and just change it's orientation at will like an iPad. Yet with a stand so it could be standing upright in portrait or landscape yet moved and sit anywhere down to almost flat on the desk. That way if you want the screen upright you can have, yet small enough that your not putting it to far away and for the odd navigation touch command would not be to bad. Yet lying down you get the full advantage and directness of touch screen.
This device would be great for Graphics, CAD, 3D modeling, even FCP maybe where the ability to make the workflow even more direct and tactile would be a real advantage.
I can't see this device happening this year, but I can dream can't I. See the other part that seems to missing is something that has the directness of touch but and doesn't obscure what your doing like a mouse so you get the accuracy, but you can't do this at the expense of the other input means on there respective platforms. Or in other words a stylus but it has to work with fingers as well but not spongy like the current ones you can buy.
To me the keyboards a red herring, both OSX and iOS can use either real or on screen keyboard. The difference comes down to point device.
As for why they split off iOS as a branch, well where now five years in and only with Lion is it looking like the two will align. So if they waited till OS X was ready they would have forgone the last 4 years of iOS device revenue plus maybe the next 2-3 years as well before it was really ready for the general purpose touchable OS. Even then it would be doubtful if One Application Framework is diverse enough to cover 4 families of products each with there own tweaks to how you work with them.
It's funny for all the advantages of computers it's only now we see them becoming as intuitive as pencil and paper some time in the next 5ish years.
Yep so intrigued to what this new device maybe if it''s anything all. There some really fun possibilities. Just not sure which one is "ready" for this year.
I suppose it's possible, as many presume, that Apple is looking to merge OS X and iOS, but it's never been that convincing of an argument to me. There are some real incompatibilities between the two in my mind. Many OS X apps demand the precision and unrestricted visibility that a keyboard and mouse give you, but once you're using a keyboard and mouse, the display has moved away from your fingers. A vertical display keeps it within reach, but humans just aren't suited to using a vertical touch screen for more than a few minutes, as Steve Jobs has himself remarked.
If the future were some kind of OS X / iOS hybrid, why did Apple invent iOS in the first place? Why not just go straight for this touchable OS X Nirvana if it exists? I suspect it doesn't exist, and Apple understood that a usable touchscreen interface has a unique set of requirements, benefits and limitations.
As for what this 'ix.Mac.MarketingName' is, I actually haven't a clue. It's somewhat intriguing though. It's kind of exciting to think that the inventive minds at Apple might be hatching some new kind of device. A little optimistic maybe, but who knows?
Was thinking more of a desktop touch screen device. Different from the iPad which wants to be picked up and used, but is workable on your lap. This mythical desktop touch device would still need to be light enough that you could lift it up and just change it's orientation at will like an iPad. Yet with a stand so it could be standing upright in portrait or landscape yet moved and sit anywhere down to almost flat on the desk. That way if you want the screen upright you can have, yet small enough that your not putting it to far away and for the odd navigation touch command would not be to bad. Yet lying down you get the full advantage and directness of touch screen.
This device would be great for Graphics, CAD, 3D modeling, even FCP maybe where the ability to make the workflow even more direct and tactile would be a real advantage.
I can't see this device happening this year, but I can dream can't I. See the other part that seems to missing is something that has the directness of touch but and doesn't obscure what your doing like a mouse so you get the accuracy, but you can't do this at the expense of the other input means on there respective platforms. Or in other words a stylus but it has to work with fingers as well but not spongy like the current ones you can buy.
To me the keyboards a red herring, both OSX and iOS can use either real or on screen keyboard. The difference comes down to point device.
As for why they split off iOS as a branch, well where now five years in and only with Lion is it looking like the two will align. So if they waited till OS X was ready they would have forgone the last 4 years of iOS device revenue plus maybe the next 2-3 years as well before it was really ready for the general purpose touchable OS. Even then it would be doubtful if One Application Framework is diverse enough to cover 4 families of products each with there own tweaks to how you work with them.
It's funny for all the advantages of computers it's only now we see them becoming as intuitive as pencil and paper some time in the next 5ish years.
Yep so intrigued to what this new device maybe if it''s anything all. There some really fun possibilities. Just not sure which one is "ready" for this year.
cmaier
Apr 21, 10:59 PM
The US courts are pro Apple.
um. Huh? They don't seem to be winning much in the U.S. What is the source of your conjecture?
um. Huh? They don't seem to be winning much in the U.S. What is the source of your conjecture?
ChazUK
Apr 28, 12:15 PM
Beaten in terms what what?
The entire Android platform only generates 1 billion dollars per year in revenue for Google.
On the flip side, the iOS platform generates 1.4 billion dollars per quarter through the iTunes store for Apple.
Google hasn't found a way to significantly capitalize on Androids market share and that is a major loss. Hell, Google could take over the other 30% of the market held by RIM/ect. and the yearly Android revenue would still be below Apples quarterly revenue for the iOS platform.
I dont know if Google want Android to be a pure moneyspinner. They're already better off with smartphones accessable to more people which in turn means more people online doing searches, using their services and data mining. OEMs like HTC, samsung, lg, zte and chipset makers will be the real breadwinners of Android if they can push successful products based on the OS.
The entire Android platform only generates 1 billion dollars per year in revenue for Google.
On the flip side, the iOS platform generates 1.4 billion dollars per quarter through the iTunes store for Apple.
Google hasn't found a way to significantly capitalize on Androids market share and that is a major loss. Hell, Google could take over the other 30% of the market held by RIM/ect. and the yearly Android revenue would still be below Apples quarterly revenue for the iOS platform.
I dont know if Google want Android to be a pure moneyspinner. They're already better off with smartphones accessable to more people which in turn means more people online doing searches, using their services and data mining. OEMs like HTC, samsung, lg, zte and chipset makers will be the real breadwinners of Android if they can push successful products based on the OS.
baryon
Mar 31, 11:38 AM
That is really, really ugly. Like, really ugly. I cannot imagine having that brown turd interface open on my second monitor all day... blargh!
lol, brown turd, that's exactly what it looks like... horrible!
lol, brown turd, that's exactly what it looks like... horrible!
JeffLebowski41
Apr 13, 04:44 PM
Munster goes along with this huh? well, that's enough for me to discredit it. I wouldn't mind having his job. The qualifications are apparently nil.
MatLu
Jun 7, 12:14 AM
This is one of the reasons why I don't have any of my credit card associated with my iTunes account. I always just buy myself some iTunes credit and use that instead. So far I've never bought anything by accident on iTunes (but I did once buy a Kindle book on Amazon by accident (since Kindle books are automatically and always 1-Click purchases even if you disable that feature for everything else on Amazon). Lesson learned for this kid and mother. Luckily they were able to get a refund from Apple.
aardwolf
Apr 15, 03:50 PM
And dropbox now works without the plist hack
The Dropbox forum build has been working without the plist hack for over a week. Check out http://www.dropbox.com/forums to get it.
The Dropbox forum build has been working without the plist hack for over a week. Check out http://www.dropbox.com/forums to get it.
bobbytallant
Apr 28, 04:00 PM
I have both the white and black 32gb iPhone 4's next to me now. How anyone can say one feels immediately thicker than the other is beyond me lol.
Chase R
Dec 4, 03:38 PM
well, im only 17 and .223 is just to expensive for me to shoot...
and I dont know why I like the sig so much, I was at gander mountain the other day, and was feeling out all of the other .22's and it just feels the best to me...
it's going to be ether the sig, or the smith and wesson M&P 15-22. that is a nice gun also...
The .223 is pretty cheap to shoot if you buy bulk ammo. You can get 500 rounds for less than $150.
and I dont know why I like the sig so much, I was at gander mountain the other day, and was feeling out all of the other .22's and it just feels the best to me...
it's going to be ether the sig, or the smith and wesson M&P 15-22. that is a nice gun also...
The .223 is pretty cheap to shoot if you buy bulk ammo. You can get 500 rounds for less than $150.
Banyan Bruce
Mar 31, 01:53 PM
The brown leather looks hideous..if I'd wanted a leather calendar, I'd buy one. :confused:
Even worst than the awful wood background that appears in several apps. :mad:
Even worst than the awful wood background that appears in several apps. :mad:
Xenomorph
Apr 28, 10:07 AM
I want to know why the 3GS screen is missing the Game Center icon...
Are they showing a 3G instead of a 3GS?
Are they showing a 3G instead of a 3GS?
PlipPlop
Apr 13, 10:38 AM
Widgets are meant to get you in and out faster. Meaning if you want to just unlock you phone to click next on your media player you can unlock and not have to open an app but just click next.
Prihlásiť na odber:
Zverejniť komentáre (Atom)
Žiadne komentáre:
Zverejnenie komentára