maclaptop
Apr 26, 02:04 PM
They have to pays for it...
Yes they do, and that's why I celebrate the huge value of my Apple investment.
When it comes to Apple, their's no shortage of buyers. :)
Yes they do, and that's why I celebrate the huge value of my Apple investment.
When it comes to Apple, their's no shortage of buyers. :)
maclaptop
May 4, 09:31 AM
There is no reason in the world for Apple NOT to introduce the new iPhone at WWDC...except for the possibility that they are disastrously behind in development. Which would be simply embarrassing.
There are lots of reasons, but posting them is pointless.
Apple has nothing to be embarrassed about.
There are lots of reasons, but posting them is pointless.
Apple has nothing to be embarrassed about.
gnasher729
Jul 24, 10:48 AM
I know this does not have much to do with anything in this thread. I have heard Gates owns a some shares of Apple and was wondering how many or what percentage he owns. I have googled, ask jeeves, yahoo and searched this website for 45 minutes for the answer with no luck and thought you all in this thread could shed some light. Thanks for reading.
Zero.
Zero.
iphones4evry1
Sep 30, 07:50 PM
I guarantee you that Sprint, Tmobile, Verizon, and all of AT&T's other competitors are going to jump on this and make sure it is in every television commercial, print ad, radio commercial, and every other form of possible advertisement. "Do you want to have 30% of all of your calls dropped?..."
more...
bedifferent
Apr 22, 05:15 PM
Because the hardware is in the CDMA phone on Verizon. The AT&T iphone 4 doesn't have the same chip. If the iphone 5 does, it's still up to apple and at&t to enable it.
Ah cool, didn't know that, thanks!
Ah cool, didn't know that, thanks!
PghLondon
Apr 28, 11:26 AM
This is fun.
Yes, the iPhone does compete against Android. The last time I went into a AT&T or Verizon store, this was obvious. To say that the iPhone does not compete against Android is silly.
WRONG. iPhone = hardware. Android = software.
iOS competes against Android.
Because there is only two hardware choices, the iPhone 4 or iPhone 3GS. Making this argument is so empty, in that it does not take into account the reasons behind it.
WRONG. The choice is iPhone OR any Android phone OR any Win7 Phone OR any RIM phone, etc.
Hello Mr. Straw man. The article was about iPhone; if you read it it states "covering U.S. mobile phone sales". Now, if by mobile OS, you are also adding in the iPad, that is debatable. I've been a iPad 3G owner since April 30th and I can tell you that I do not consider the iPad a mobile device. Sure, its easy to carry, but to lump in its sales with phone handset sales is a stretch. If you are making that stretch, how about adding netbooks into the mix as well?
If those netbooks ran Android, I'd count them. But they don't. And YOU'RE bringing up straw men? Phone versus non-phone makes no difference if they're running the same OS and same apps.
When your sales numbers for phones are ~50% of that of your competitor; whereas a few years ago they were barely a blip, then yes that means they are getting kicked in the teeth in handset OS sales.
In your mind maybe. But only in your mind.
PS: Handset OS sales? What the hell does that mean?
Yes, the iPhone does compete against Android. The last time I went into a AT&T or Verizon store, this was obvious. To say that the iPhone does not compete against Android is silly.
WRONG. iPhone = hardware. Android = software.
iOS competes against Android.
Because there is only two hardware choices, the iPhone 4 or iPhone 3GS. Making this argument is so empty, in that it does not take into account the reasons behind it.
WRONG. The choice is iPhone OR any Android phone OR any Win7 Phone OR any RIM phone, etc.
Hello Mr. Straw man. The article was about iPhone; if you read it it states "covering U.S. mobile phone sales". Now, if by mobile OS, you are also adding in the iPad, that is debatable. I've been a iPad 3G owner since April 30th and I can tell you that I do not consider the iPad a mobile device. Sure, its easy to carry, but to lump in its sales with phone handset sales is a stretch. If you are making that stretch, how about adding netbooks into the mix as well?
If those netbooks ran Android, I'd count them. But they don't. And YOU'RE bringing up straw men? Phone versus non-phone makes no difference if they're running the same OS and same apps.
When your sales numbers for phones are ~50% of that of your competitor; whereas a few years ago they were barely a blip, then yes that means they are getting kicked in the teeth in handset OS sales.
In your mind maybe. But only in your mind.
PS: Handset OS sales? What the hell does that mean?
more...
Donz0r
Jul 11, 03:33 PM
The picture is a concept photoshop designed by a forum user.
Look at the website it's posted at.
Look at the website it's posted at.
gkhaldi
Oct 23, 12:31 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?
I refuse to spend another dime @ Micro$oft.
Are any of you really going to upgrade to Vista when it comes out? or are you going to wait at least a year?
I refuse to spend another dime @ Micro$oft.
more...
playaj82
Jul 27, 01:18 PM
Trademarks must be able to be shown to be in use to be defensible. You cannot simply trademark any name or phrase you want. You have to demonstrate the current or intended future use of the name or phrase.
With regards to "doPod", Apple doesn't need to trademark that, as they could argue that the name of a device that was called a doPod was too similar to their, already trademarked, device called "iPod".
You can file an anticipatory mark. The key is intent to use. For instance, I've developed a product and want to start marketing it, i.e. Zune. I file my mark with the PTO before the product has ever actually entered the stream of commerce. Now getting "real" protection from infringers would require you have used it in commerce rather than intended to use it in commerce. But the PTO doesn't handle infringement, they primarily handle validity.
If I don't use it, oh well, the next person who comes along and uses the mark with their product gets to argue that I never used it in commerce. My point is that the little guy who comes along and uses the mark is better off coming up with something else rather than getting into any legal dispute with a company the size of Apple.
With regards to "doPod", Apple doesn't need to trademark that, as they could argue that the name of a device that was called a doPod was too similar to their, already trademarked, device called "iPod".
You can file an anticipatory mark. The key is intent to use. For instance, I've developed a product and want to start marketing it, i.e. Zune. I file my mark with the PTO before the product has ever actually entered the stream of commerce. Now getting "real" protection from infringers would require you have used it in commerce rather than intended to use it in commerce. But the PTO doesn't handle infringement, they primarily handle validity.
If I don't use it, oh well, the next person who comes along and uses the mark with their product gets to argue that I never used it in commerce. My point is that the little guy who comes along and uses the mark is better off coming up with something else rather than getting into any legal dispute with a company the size of Apple.
rdlink
Apr 23, 08:29 PM
Nooooo!
After waiting two years for TMO to get the iPhone, I just threw up my arms in disgust at the merger news and moved over to VZ. Wish I could get confirmation before my thirty days with VZ are up.
For those of you talking trash about TMO's network: While their overall coverage is not as good as VZ's, their speed network wide is better than either VZ or AT&T. Much better. Much, much better. Trust me. I know.
After waiting two years for TMO to get the iPhone, I just threw up my arms in disgust at the merger news and moved over to VZ. Wish I could get confirmation before my thirty days with VZ are up.
For those of you talking trash about TMO's network: While their overall coverage is not as good as VZ's, their speed network wide is better than either VZ or AT&T. Much better. Much, much better. Trust me. I know.
more...
Lesser Evets
Apr 29, 02:52 PM
CDs are generally around $10-$13 in stores. Downloads at roughly the same price are a rip(10+ songs per CD). $.69 is right for me. Hello, Amazon.
joepunk
May 1, 10:07 PM
I'm missing Andy Rooney for this long drawn out CBS announcement. :p
I mean, all I need to know is is he dead or not. I don't need 20 questions to 20 different reporters/analysts/etc on whether efforts have been steeped up in the last few months to find/kill osama and other information.
I mean, all I need to know is is he dead or not. I don't need 20 questions to 20 different reporters/analysts/etc on whether efforts have been steeped up in the last few months to find/kill osama and other information.
more...
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 :)
Nielsenius
Apr 16, 09:42 AM
I just want to point out that there is an apparent disparity between the new Finder view options (icons, Cover Flow, etc) and the "Select File" view options. It would seem that either Apple forgot to change the slider look in the selection window, or they mistakenly changed it in Finder.
One more change I noticed is Preview quitting after exiting the last open Preview window. I love this particular change because having that Preview icon in the dock always bugged me.
One more change I noticed is Preview quitting after exiting the last open Preview window. I love this particular change because having that Preview icon in the dock always bugged me.
more...
FloatingBones
Nov 23, 12:46 AM
That's not why I called him a Communist. I call him a Communist because he acts like a 1-person dictator.
He's the CEO of a company: accountable to the Board of Directors and the stockholders of the publicly-traded company. There's no comparison between that and a communist dictator. Goofy.
Anyone who can provide a rational reason why these two things are comparable, please chime in.
Flash for iOS is no more of a security risk than it is for OSX in general or any other plugin from PDF readers to Javascript.
That's a terrible argument for having bundled Adobe products on iOS.
Adobe products are a large risk on Mac OS X. It's unbelievable to me that Adobe Reader is a vector for zero day bugs (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt). I really don't know how you do that: it's a PDF reader! The bugs have been around in Adobe Reader for years and Adobe still hasn't fixed them.
If you only view PDF files, you shouldn't even have Adobe Reader installed on your OS X computer. Apple Preview is better, faster, and far less bug-prone.
Steve Jobs "reason" for not including Flash is supposedly mostly about performance not security risks.
It's about both the performance and the security risks.
It's also about the identity-leaking through Flash cookies. Perhaps you missed that security discussion: more than half of the top 100 websites are now using Flash cookies to track users and store information about them (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-209.txt). Flash cookies do not honor the cookie privacy settings of the browser; many users don't even know that Flash maintains its own set of cookies.
It's about the quirky UI interactions with Flash. Scrolling works differently when the mouse is over a Flash region. Certain keyboard shortcuts cease to work. Text that is displayed in a flash window is not searchable with the browser's text-finding feature. My Mac doesn't behave like a Mac inside of a Flash window.
Then why are they allowing Flash in regular OSX?
Software is much more tightly-controlled on iOS devices. There is a file system firewall between every app. Third-party apps must be submitted to Apple before they can be distributed, and Apple has the capability to remotely disable any third party app that begins to exhibit a malware-like behavior in the field.
Some of those controls are about advances in OS development since Mac OS X. Some have to do with the nature of the device: handhelds are more appliances than laptops.
One other reason to ban Flash on iOS: Flash apps can be packaged as iOS apps. This should be safe because of the way that iOS apps are firewalled from each other and the kill switch that Apple can use if an app is found to be rogue.
There are fundamental differences between iOS devices and laptops/desktops. Also, Apple no longer ships Adobe Flash on their newest computers. (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1034486) I'm guessing that Apple will ship Flash on no computers starting with the release of OS X 10.7 next year.
By your logic that would mean that Microsoft must be the most incompetent company out there.
I don't believe you read that headline carefully: Security experts believe that Adobe is going to surpass Microsoft as the #1 target for security attacks (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-231.htm).
On the contrary, it indicates they are POPULAR.
No reason to shout.
Perhaps it indicates they have some fundamental problems in their software engineering. Did you read the podcast transcript about the latest Adobe bug? Adobe Reader has the same zero-day glitch as Flash. How does a PDF viewer get executable bugs like this?
How often does Apple update their security? I guess they're clueless too by your account. You won't admit that, however because you have an emotional investment in Apple.
Apple updates their software when updates are needed.
The point is that quarterly updates are far too infrequent. Did you read the transcript of the Security Now! podcast? Given the continuing number of Adobe zero-day bugs, Gibson asks:
"[Adobe:] how is that quarterly update cycle going for you?" (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt)
That is not what I said or what I proposed.
You proposed that Apple include Flash with iOS Safari and that users could turn it on. How you can possibly ensure that not a single iOS user will not lose anything the next time there's a zero day Adobe bug (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt). You can't.
%IMG_DESC_16%
more...
%IMG_DESC_17%
%IMG_DESC_18%
%IMG_DESC_19%
He's the CEO of a company: accountable to the Board of Directors and the stockholders of the publicly-traded company. There's no comparison between that and a communist dictator. Goofy.
Anyone who can provide a rational reason why these two things are comparable, please chime in.
Flash for iOS is no more of a security risk than it is for OSX in general or any other plugin from PDF readers to Javascript.
That's a terrible argument for having bundled Adobe products on iOS.
Adobe products are a large risk on Mac OS X. It's unbelievable to me that Adobe Reader is a vector for zero day bugs (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt). I really don't know how you do that: it's a PDF reader! The bugs have been around in Adobe Reader for years and Adobe still hasn't fixed them.
If you only view PDF files, you shouldn't even have Adobe Reader installed on your OS X computer. Apple Preview is better, faster, and far less bug-prone.
Steve Jobs "reason" for not including Flash is supposedly mostly about performance not security risks.
It's about both the performance and the security risks.
It's also about the identity-leaking through Flash cookies. Perhaps you missed that security discussion: more than half of the top 100 websites are now using Flash cookies to track users and store information about them (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-209.txt). Flash cookies do not honor the cookie privacy settings of the browser; many users don't even know that Flash maintains its own set of cookies.
It's about the quirky UI interactions with Flash. Scrolling works differently when the mouse is over a Flash region. Certain keyboard shortcuts cease to work. Text that is displayed in a flash window is not searchable with the browser's text-finding feature. My Mac doesn't behave like a Mac inside of a Flash window.
Then why are they allowing Flash in regular OSX?
Software is much more tightly-controlled on iOS devices. There is a file system firewall between every app. Third-party apps must be submitted to Apple before they can be distributed, and Apple has the capability to remotely disable any third party app that begins to exhibit a malware-like behavior in the field.
Some of those controls are about advances in OS development since Mac OS X. Some have to do with the nature of the device: handhelds are more appliances than laptops.
One other reason to ban Flash on iOS: Flash apps can be packaged as iOS apps. This should be safe because of the way that iOS apps are firewalled from each other and the kill switch that Apple can use if an app is found to be rogue.
There are fundamental differences between iOS devices and laptops/desktops. Also, Apple no longer ships Adobe Flash on their newest computers. (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1034486) I'm guessing that Apple will ship Flash on no computers starting with the release of OS X 10.7 next year.
By your logic that would mean that Microsoft must be the most incompetent company out there.
I don't believe you read that headline carefully: Security experts believe that Adobe is going to surpass Microsoft as the #1 target for security attacks (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-231.htm).
On the contrary, it indicates they are POPULAR.
No reason to shout.
Perhaps it indicates they have some fundamental problems in their software engineering. Did you read the podcast transcript about the latest Adobe bug? Adobe Reader has the same zero-day glitch as Flash. How does a PDF viewer get executable bugs like this?
How often does Apple update their security? I guess they're clueless too by your account. You won't admit that, however because you have an emotional investment in Apple.
Apple updates their software when updates are needed.
The point is that quarterly updates are far too infrequent. Did you read the transcript of the Security Now! podcast? Given the continuing number of Adobe zero-day bugs, Gibson asks:
"[Adobe:] how is that quarterly update cycle going for you?" (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt)
That is not what I said or what I proposed.
You proposed that Apple include Flash with iOS Safari and that users could turn it on. How you can possibly ensure that not a single iOS user will not lose anything the next time there's a zero day Adobe bug (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt). You can't.
Chopstick217
Apr 19, 11:11 AM
+1
I agree. I think the 'gain' in processor speed will be hard to notice. But for many of us, the 'drop' in gpu performance (which is already marginal with the 320m) will be deadly.
Agreed, even though I mainly game on my desktop. I still occasionally play wow and starcraft on my air. The drop in GPU performance would most definitely affect me more than the marginal CPU increase.
I agree. I think the 'gain' in processor speed will be hard to notice. But for many of us, the 'drop' in gpu performance (which is already marginal with the 320m) will be deadly.
Agreed, even though I mainly game on my desktop. I still occasionally play wow and starcraft on my air. The drop in GPU performance would most definitely affect me more than the marginal CPU increase.
more...
Surely
Jan 26, 11:01 AM
I don't think you had anything to apologize for, jessica..
You did what was supposed to be done. If I had noticed before you, I would have started the new thread. Closing threads and starting new ones after the 2,000 post mark is typically what is done around here.
Who cares who the thread starter is...... all that matters is that there is a thread for everyone to show off their consumerism.;)
You did what was supposed to be done. If I had noticed before you, I would have started the new thread. Closing threads and starting new ones after the 2,000 post mark is typically what is done around here.
Who cares who the thread starter is...... all that matters is that there is a thread for everyone to show off their consumerism.;)
chanerz
Sep 14, 11:23 AM
Call of duty Black Ops http://www.ebgames.com/Catalog/ProductDetails.aspx?product_id=83935
nies
Apr 28, 08:03 PM
I'm not a she
Glass
Jul 11, 03:48 PM
They will. Microsoft doing this will definitely cause Apple to be less stingy with the R&D and get some great small products to market.
God, I really hope that Leopard is more of an upgrade than Tiger was.
You don't think tiger was a significant upgrade? wtf?? lol.. it was packed with new features.
God, I really hope that Leopard is more of an upgrade than Tiger was.
You don't think tiger was a significant upgrade? wtf?? lol.. it was packed with new features.
iDrinkKoolAid
Jul 29, 12:15 AM
I'm guessing others have already echoed my thoughts already, but competition is good a good thing.
The iPod is great (I use one every day at the gym), but nothing lasts forever.
I'm worried that Microsoft is in it for the long haul and will hold on until the iPod is crushed.
Then we'll be all left with sub-standard MP3 players that only work with Windows. :(
The iPod is great (I use one every day at the gym), but nothing lasts forever.
I'm worried that Microsoft is in it for the long haul and will hold on until the iPod is crushed.
Then we'll be all left with sub-standard MP3 players that only work with Windows. :(
Keebler
Dec 31, 11:18 AM
Since when did a persons lifestyle choice become everyone else's business? Jesus, I didn't realize being fat was such an ethical decision... :rolleyes:
And to actually bring in healthcare and politics into this? Seriously? Then you guys should:
1) stop smoking cigarettes,
2) stop eating fast food,
3) stop sitting on your ass typing on mac rumors (maybe go for a run?)
4) avoid ever single carcinogen on the planet, like say, the sun (UV radiation?)...
5) stop driving cars, or doing anything that involves fast or dangerous movement, like say sports?
6) be the perfect most healthy person ever...
...because it's my problem. I'm paying for it in my taxes. HOW COULD YOU BE SO SELFISH!?
This is her choice. It effects her and her family, not you. I forgot how God declared that fat people go straight to hell, because being fat is so evil...
i think you missed my point - it's about her probably having a mental issue thinking her goal is 'ok'.
Raising healthcare is an issue - it's common sense that 'fit' people will probably have a smaller impact on healthcare than someone who is unfit. Being fit doesn't guarantee perfect health, but it's like having a flat tire on a car vs a car without a flat - which one is going to go farther and requires less repairs???
And to actually bring in healthcare and politics into this? Seriously? Then you guys should:
1) stop smoking cigarettes,
2) stop eating fast food,
3) stop sitting on your ass typing on mac rumors (maybe go for a run?)
4) avoid ever single carcinogen on the planet, like say, the sun (UV radiation?)...
5) stop driving cars, or doing anything that involves fast or dangerous movement, like say sports?
6) be the perfect most healthy person ever...
...because it's my problem. I'm paying for it in my taxes. HOW COULD YOU BE SO SELFISH!?
This is her choice. It effects her and her family, not you. I forgot how God declared that fat people go straight to hell, because being fat is so evil...
i think you missed my point - it's about her probably having a mental issue thinking her goal is 'ok'.
Raising healthcare is an issue - it's common sense that 'fit' people will probably have a smaller impact on healthcare than someone who is unfit. Being fit doesn't guarantee perfect health, but it's like having a flat tire on a car vs a car without a flat - which one is going to go farther and requires less repairs???
Skoal
Apr 13, 03:28 PM
GLEE! Ugh! 'Nuff said!
deannnnn
Apr 23, 06:57 PM
Maybe they're testing this so that when AT&T and T-Mo combine, future iPhones will be able to use the T-Mobile 3G bands, even though the phone would still be exclusive to AT&T (and of course, Verizon).
No comments:
Post a Comment