rekahs
Jul 28, 09:07 AM
This sounds just like what they said with Xbox. They want it to do something new, they expect it to be the next big thing, and it's gonna take a few years. I think once Wii is released, we'll see 360 take a market dive just like 360 did, and Zune may well face the same fate.
surely if you look at it that way the ipod is in the position the 360 is in and the zune is like the wii.
however i really dont think microsoft will ever be able to compete.
they're fighting against a huge marketshare.
and ms will never be as "cool" as apple.
apple would have to do alot wrong to lose their position now.
as for microsoft calling it a "long-term project"
yeah...long-term like getting vista working?
surely if you look at it that way the ipod is in the position the 360 is in and the zune is like the wii.
however i really dont think microsoft will ever be able to compete.
they're fighting against a huge marketshare.
and ms will never be as "cool" as apple.
apple would have to do alot wrong to lose their position now.
as for microsoft calling it a "long-term project"
yeah...long-term like getting vista working?
silentnite
Apr 23, 10:36 AM
another unhappy marriage, can't we all just play nice.
WildCowboy
Jul 10, 02:58 PM
I think I need to start wearing glasses!
I could have sworn that the title was in regards to a Macrumors Page 3 unveiling.
I will now pay closer attention!
You and Westside_guy should get together...see post #24 in this thread. Then go see post #27.
I could have sworn that the title was in regards to a Macrumors Page 3 unveiling.
I will now pay closer attention!
You and Westside_guy should get together...see post #24 in this thread. Then go see post #27.
kewlguy781
Mar 15, 10:21 AM
How do you know? I don't want to waste a trip.
--Sean
fyi- from salt lake city apple store, they didnt get any ipad today.
--Sean
fyi- from salt lake city apple store, they didnt get any ipad today.
more...
Matt-M
Apr 28, 05:08 PM
Maybe we should just grab a couple of iphones for...ahem....testing purposes! :)
I have high-precision digital calipers, but only a black phone.
The only reason I found this interesting is the why. If the white phone is thicker, why is it thicker? Different camera vendor (since that's the thickest internal component)? Insulation on the antenna? Different battery? Thicker paint coating to prevent light leaks?
I couldn't care less about the fact that it might be thicker, only the reason. Alas, I don't think it is. Maybe only enough for the paint explanation.
I have high-precision digital calipers, but only a black phone.
The only reason I found this interesting is the why. If the white phone is thicker, why is it thicker? Different camera vendor (since that's the thickest internal component)? Insulation on the antenna? Different battery? Thicker paint coating to prevent light leaks?
I couldn't care less about the fact that it might be thicker, only the reason. Alas, I don't think it is. Maybe only enough for the paint explanation.
Eldiablojoe
Apr 16, 10:50 PM
In :D
more...
lbro
Oct 25, 12:14 AM
One thing I want is a new phone, my old one's battery is so crappy it lasts for a couple of hours and than it starts beeping to signal that the battery is dead. Very annoying.
fozy
Sep 30, 10:02 AM
It's really unbelievable that you see so many iPhones in NYC, I was there recently for three days and received only a couple calls, most of them went to voicemail, also data service was out for hours at a time.
This poor service really stands out when you live in a small market with 3G service where the phone works acceptably well.
AT&T has a problem. I've been a customer for many years. Most of my family are AT&T customers. We all live in different parts of the country and we all experience the same problems. Very frequent, way too frequent, dropped calls. I know the naysayers and apologists here say to give AT&T a break. They are experiencing growing pains. Here's what I have to say.
First of all, my iPhone is a Phone! I expect the phone part of the iPhone to work above all else. It's nice to have the apps but I expect the phone to work 100% of the time. That's what I'm paying for. If AT&T needs to figure out a way to throttle down the data then that's what they need to do during peak usage. Phone calls should be the priority for a phone! I still have a Gen 1 iPhone and will not upgrade until AT&T resolves their problems. When I get tired of waiting for that to happen and my iPhone dies, I'll switch phones and networks.
This poor service really stands out when you live in a small market with 3G service where the phone works acceptably well.
AT&T has a problem. I've been a customer for many years. Most of my family are AT&T customers. We all live in different parts of the country and we all experience the same problems. Very frequent, way too frequent, dropped calls. I know the naysayers and apologists here say to give AT&T a break. They are experiencing growing pains. Here's what I have to say.
First of all, my iPhone is a Phone! I expect the phone part of the iPhone to work above all else. It's nice to have the apps but I expect the phone to work 100% of the time. That's what I'm paying for. If AT&T needs to figure out a way to throttle down the data then that's what they need to do during peak usage. Phone calls should be the priority for a phone! I still have a Gen 1 iPhone and will not upgrade until AT&T resolves their problems. When I get tired of waiting for that to happen and my iPhone dies, I'll switch phones and networks.
more...
jtara
Apr 14, 11:14 AM
Interesting possibility. It would be extremely difficult to emulate a complete iOS device (custom ASICs and all). But Apple could emulate just enough ARM instructions to emulate an app that was compiled by Xcode & LLVM (which would limit the way ARM instructions were generated), and used only legal public iOS APIs (instead of emulating hardware and all the registers), which could be translated in Cocoa APIs to display on a Mac OS X machine.
There's no need to emulate ARM instructions, though. And they already do emulate all of the complete iOS devices, at least sufficiently to run iOS apps on OSX.
Apple provides developers with a complete emulation package for testing their iOS apps on OSX. Apps are cross-compiled to x86 code. They also provide the complete set of iOS SDKs, cross-compiled to X86 code.
An emulator handles the device hardware - touchscreen, display, sound system, GPS (REALLY simple emulation - it's always sunny in Mountain View...), etc. If an iPhone or iPad are attached via USB cable, the emulator can even use the accelerometer and gyroscope in the device. Obviously, this could be easily changed to use some new peripheral device.
Other than device emulation, the apps suffer no loss of speed, since they are running native x86 code. In fact, they run considerably faster (ignoring, for this discussion, device emulation) than then do on an actual iOS device.
All Apple would need to give consumers the ability to run iOS apps on their Macs would be to provide them with the emulator (or, more likely, integrate it into the OSX desktop. I think end-users would find the picture of an iPhone or iPad that the emulator draws around the "screen" cute for a couple of days, but then quickly tire of it...), and add an additional target for developers.
What we've seen certainly seems to suggest that's what this is. HOWEVER:
1. For a single app to be compatible with both ARM and x86, they would need to introduce a "fat binary" similar to what they did with the transition from PowerPC to x86. This would bloat apps that are compatible with both to double their current download size. Current Universal (iPhone/iPad) apps are NOT fat binaries. They have multiple sets of resources (images, screen layouts, etc.) and the code needs to have multiple behaviors depending on the device. i.e. the code has to check "is this an iPad? If so do this...
Currently, developers have to create separate binaries for use on the emulator or the actual device.
2. Several developers have checked-in here to say that their apps are listed this way. None have offered that they had any advance knowledge of this, or did anything to make it happen. If this is about ARM/x86 fat binaries, the developer would have had to build their app that way. And even if it didn't require a re-build, I think it's highly unlikely that Apple would start selling apps on a new platform without letting the developers know!
3. Apple is *reasonably* fair about giving all developers access to new technology at the same time. They also generally make a public announcement at the same time as making beta SDKs available to developers. (Though the public announcement may be limited in scope and vague.) There are so many developers, that despite confidentiality agreements, most of the details get out to the public pretty quickly, though perhaps in muddled form. While Apple DOES hand-pick developers for early-early access, it's typically not THAT early. A few weeks, max.
I do think that an x86 target for iOS apps is inevitable. Just not imminent.
My best guess is that this was a screw-up by the web-site developers. Perhaps they did a mockup of the app store for the marketing people, selected some apps or app categories that seemed likely candidates, and slipped-up and it went live on the real app store.
There's no need to emulate ARM instructions, though. And they already do emulate all of the complete iOS devices, at least sufficiently to run iOS apps on OSX.
Apple provides developers with a complete emulation package for testing their iOS apps on OSX. Apps are cross-compiled to x86 code. They also provide the complete set of iOS SDKs, cross-compiled to X86 code.
An emulator handles the device hardware - touchscreen, display, sound system, GPS (REALLY simple emulation - it's always sunny in Mountain View...), etc. If an iPhone or iPad are attached via USB cable, the emulator can even use the accelerometer and gyroscope in the device. Obviously, this could be easily changed to use some new peripheral device.
Other than device emulation, the apps suffer no loss of speed, since they are running native x86 code. In fact, they run considerably faster (ignoring, for this discussion, device emulation) than then do on an actual iOS device.
All Apple would need to give consumers the ability to run iOS apps on their Macs would be to provide them with the emulator (or, more likely, integrate it into the OSX desktop. I think end-users would find the picture of an iPhone or iPad that the emulator draws around the "screen" cute for a couple of days, but then quickly tire of it...), and add an additional target for developers.
What we've seen certainly seems to suggest that's what this is. HOWEVER:
1. For a single app to be compatible with both ARM and x86, they would need to introduce a "fat binary" similar to what they did with the transition from PowerPC to x86. This would bloat apps that are compatible with both to double their current download size. Current Universal (iPhone/iPad) apps are NOT fat binaries. They have multiple sets of resources (images, screen layouts, etc.) and the code needs to have multiple behaviors depending on the device. i.e. the code has to check "is this an iPad? If so do this...
Currently, developers have to create separate binaries for use on the emulator or the actual device.
2. Several developers have checked-in here to say that their apps are listed this way. None have offered that they had any advance knowledge of this, or did anything to make it happen. If this is about ARM/x86 fat binaries, the developer would have had to build their app that way. And even if it didn't require a re-build, I think it's highly unlikely that Apple would start selling apps on a new platform without letting the developers know!
3. Apple is *reasonably* fair about giving all developers access to new technology at the same time. They also generally make a public announcement at the same time as making beta SDKs available to developers. (Though the public announcement may be limited in scope and vague.) There are so many developers, that despite confidentiality agreements, most of the details get out to the public pretty quickly, though perhaps in muddled form. While Apple DOES hand-pick developers for early-early access, it's typically not THAT early. A few weeks, max.
I do think that an x86 target for iOS apps is inevitable. Just not imminent.
My best guess is that this was a screw-up by the web-site developers. Perhaps they did a mockup of the app store for the marketing people, selected some apps or app categories that seemed likely candidates, and slipped-up and it went live on the real app store.
heron88
Apr 10, 04:53 PM
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5108/5607210971_882043e418_b.jpg
---f/14---1/80"---ISO100---135mm---
---f/14---1/80"---ISO100---135mm---
more...
leekohler
Nov 8, 10:27 AM
I won't get it but:
biggerbearbrian
Oct 19, 09:03 AM
*sigh* How many times do we have to refute your assertions with facts before you stop repeating them?
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.
As for Apple's innovative spirit lacking when it comes to the Macs, let's just point out that it Apple updated the iPod in October 2005 to the 5th generation, and we JUST got the 5.5th generation last month. Apple took a year to add slightly brighter screens, better battery life (only for video), and games. The nano just gained the anodized aluminum exterior -- wow, Apple's reaching back to the past for it's innovation now! And the shuffle got slimmed down and consolidated into one product. All this doesn't sound exactly like innovation to me. (Of course, Apple doesn't really need to innovate, since they're already selling iPods by the boatload.)
In contrast, Apple brought all of its Macs over to the Intel processor. The Mac Pro was dramatically higher value, what with double-wide graphics card slot, dual optical drives, 4 internal hard drive bays, etc., etc. All Macs (except for the Mac Pro) now have Front Row and a remote, which is a great feature. Built-in iSights have also migrated across the entire product line. The MacBook and MacBook Pro now have MagSafe -- a great innovation. Boot Camp is now supported on all new Macs. The Xserve has new features like lights-out management, redundant power supplies, etc. And we've seen some great things coming for Leopard, what with Time Machine and Spaces and iChat Theater and Core Animation and iCal Server, etc., etc., etc.
It seems to me that Apple is innovating more on the Macintosh side of things than they are with the iPod. What are they going to add next on the iPod -- wireless? *gasp*, so innovative!
Seriously, can we stop with this myth already? It's the same thing with all of Apple's "woes" with quality control (which was busted by the recent consumer reports articles where Apple has actually brought DOWN the number of new computers needing repair in their first year). It's something that's repeated ad nauseum by a few vocal people, when it's really not a problem at all. Same here: everybody gawks and writes about the iPod precisely because more people can afford it and more people can use it with whatever computer they have. So, obviously, you will hear more about the iPod.
Let's see if repeating myself again has any effect: the iPod is not Apple's cash cow!
Understood now?
OK, now fire away :rolleyes:
I think the argument can go either way. While iPod (which I love btw) is less than half Apple revenue ok. But if they were to just add the iPod line today, and have the amount of revenue they are reporting from it, the financial report would be "iPod has given us nearly a 100% increase in revenue".
So get some hershey's syrup, cause we got milk.
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.
As for Apple's innovative spirit lacking when it comes to the Macs, let's just point out that it Apple updated the iPod in October 2005 to the 5th generation, and we JUST got the 5.5th generation last month. Apple took a year to add slightly brighter screens, better battery life (only for video), and games. The nano just gained the anodized aluminum exterior -- wow, Apple's reaching back to the past for it's innovation now! And the shuffle got slimmed down and consolidated into one product. All this doesn't sound exactly like innovation to me. (Of course, Apple doesn't really need to innovate, since they're already selling iPods by the boatload.)
In contrast, Apple brought all of its Macs over to the Intel processor. The Mac Pro was dramatically higher value, what with double-wide graphics card slot, dual optical drives, 4 internal hard drive bays, etc., etc. All Macs (except for the Mac Pro) now have Front Row and a remote, which is a great feature. Built-in iSights have also migrated across the entire product line. The MacBook and MacBook Pro now have MagSafe -- a great innovation. Boot Camp is now supported on all new Macs. The Xserve has new features like lights-out management, redundant power supplies, etc. And we've seen some great things coming for Leopard, what with Time Machine and Spaces and iChat Theater and Core Animation and iCal Server, etc., etc., etc.
It seems to me that Apple is innovating more on the Macintosh side of things than they are with the iPod. What are they going to add next on the iPod -- wireless? *gasp*, so innovative!
Seriously, can we stop with this myth already? It's the same thing with all of Apple's "woes" with quality control (which was busted by the recent consumer reports articles where Apple has actually brought DOWN the number of new computers needing repair in their first year). It's something that's repeated ad nauseum by a few vocal people, when it's really not a problem at all. Same here: everybody gawks and writes about the iPod precisely because more people can afford it and more people can use it with whatever computer they have. So, obviously, you will hear more about the iPod.
Let's see if repeating myself again has any effect: the iPod is not Apple's cash cow!
Understood now?
OK, now fire away :rolleyes:
I think the argument can go either way. While iPod (which I love btw) is less than half Apple revenue ok. But if they were to just add the iPod line today, and have the amount of revenue they are reporting from it, the financial report would be "iPod has given us nearly a 100% increase in revenue".
So get some hershey's syrup, cause we got milk.
more...
Prelude2Tragedy
Apr 9, 01:39 PM
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5062/5596055161_4e2297db69_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/56792528@N05/5596055161/)
IMG_2949.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/56792528@N05/5596055161/) by Jonathan Bowers (http://www.flickr.com/people/56792528@N05/), on Flickr
IMG_2949.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/56792528@N05/5596055161/) by Jonathan Bowers (http://www.flickr.com/people/56792528@N05/), on Flickr
LagunaSol
Apr 28, 11:46 AM
Android is *unstoppable.
*when it's the only game in town
Let's get the iPhone on Sprint and T-Mobile and see how things shake out, hmm?
*when it's the only game in town
Let's get the iPhone on Sprint and T-Mobile and see how things shake out, hmm?
more...
oliversl
Apr 28, 05:03 PM
FUD!
Just put a rule on top of both iphones and take a clear/focussed photo! Can believe this is not in Page2 :(
Just put a rule on top of both iphones and take a clear/focussed photo! Can believe this is not in Page2 :(
cloud 9
Aug 20, 06:05 AM
do you need to have a zillion gigabites free to use time machine in a decent way?
for example, if you have a 1 gigabite film, and u delete it 'putting it in the trash, and empty trash', it's still going to be on your hard drive, taking up space, right? and will it also save your cookies, bookmarks, deleted programs,
i rarely delete stuff by accident...so i hope this can be turned off, and won't interrupt much of my normal workflow, the way things are deleted now.
for example, if you have a 1 gigabite film, and u delete it 'putting it in the trash, and empty trash', it's still going to be on your hard drive, taking up space, right? and will it also save your cookies, bookmarks, deleted programs,
i rarely delete stuff by accident...so i hope this can be turned off, and won't interrupt much of my normal workflow, the way things are deleted now.
more...
iphone3gs16gb
Dec 30, 06:47 PM
disgusting to say the least...
SMM
Oct 23, 08:09 PM
I've got a question for you guys. Any of you Mac users that also run Windows on a box somewhere:
Are any of you really going to upgrade to Vista when it comes out? or are you going to wait at least a year?
nyet!
Are any of you really going to upgrade to Vista when it comes out? or are you going to wait at least a year?
nyet!
AlphaBob
Jan 30, 05:12 PM
I am gambling my extra money on geopolitical actions. Bottom line is I don't mind taking a chance on my research, especially with the tensions in the middle east.
Time will tell of course. But if you think about it, the run-up in the price of gold has been post 9/11 and due to tension in the middle east. For more than six plus years the theory is that the world is coming to an end. Rightly or wrongly that theory is tightly bound to the current sitting president. When George Bush is no longer in office, things may well be different. The middle east may cool off. Betting on tension to continue seems a long bet to me.
Russia is talking of backing their currency with gold because they have been in economic crisis. They see that as a last ditch effort to short up a failing system. If you see the EU or the United States do the same, then I'd be worried.
But back to the original topic about why Apple stock is dropping. I'll say it is a gift to those that don't own the stock -- a chance to buy it for less than $200 a share! :)
Time will tell of course. But if you think about it, the run-up in the price of gold has been post 9/11 and due to tension in the middle east. For more than six plus years the theory is that the world is coming to an end. Rightly or wrongly that theory is tightly bound to the current sitting president. When George Bush is no longer in office, things may well be different. The middle east may cool off. Betting on tension to continue seems a long bet to me.
Russia is talking of backing their currency with gold because they have been in economic crisis. They see that as a last ditch effort to short up a failing system. If you see the EU or the United States do the same, then I'd be worried.
But back to the original topic about why Apple stock is dropping. I'll say it is a gift to those that don't own the stock -- a chance to buy it for less than $200 a share! :)
KnightWRX
Apr 12, 11:11 AM
http://www.crunchgear.com/2009/09/27/apple-played-critical-role-in-creating-intels-light-peak-interface/
That doesn't say anything remotely similar to "envisioned by apple." either. In fact, from your own article, try this link :
http://www.crunchgear.com/2009/09/30/yeah-apple-wasnt-integral-in-light-peak-transfer-technology/
Let's not give a bigger role to Apple than the one they played.
That doesn't say anything remotely similar to "envisioned by apple." either. In fact, from your own article, try this link :
http://www.crunchgear.com/2009/09/30/yeah-apple-wasnt-integral-in-light-peak-transfer-technology/
Let's not give a bigger role to Apple than the one they played.
Macsterguy
Apr 25, 12:42 PM
I have been thinking same, new iMac and the iPad 2.
Remote access with iPad to a Mac works fantastic with a number of programs / utilities... Just Do it :)
Remote access with iPad to a Mac works fantastic with a number of programs / utilities... Just Do it :)
mr.steevo
Apr 28, 04:41 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.
That's what I thought.
That's what I thought.
Crosbie
Apr 14, 01:37 PM
Can anyone else confirm this? How about on iPad?
Did we previously need to re-enable gestures after an update? I seem to remember doing this, though maybe it was because I transitioned to iPad 2...
No need to reenable this time, certainly.
Testing YouTube link btw: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_d6_gbb90I&sns=em
No white screen problem from that link here...
Did we previously need to re-enable gestures after an update? I seem to remember doing this, though maybe it was because I transitioned to iPad 2...
No need to reenable this time, certainly.
Testing YouTube link btw: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_d6_gbb90I&sns=em
No white screen problem from that link here...
Dbrown
Apr 19, 01:35 AM
Apple would get slaughtered if it entered the TV market. In order to compete with the big boys apple needs to actually own facilities that manufacture flat panels unless it wants to compete on the bottom end with vizio at walmart.
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий