Tones2
Apr 22, 10:53 AM
I'd be highly skeptical if Apple will introduce LTE compatable chips even in 2012. Usually Apple takes it's time to implement technologies that all other phone makers in the market have implemented. They focus on ease of use and to the point where you don't even notice the technology (et. al. there latest iPad 2 commercial) They'll probably delay any LTE implementation until 2013.
How do you "notice the 4G technology" on current 4G phone? It just works. Jeez...give me a break here with just canned statements. :rolleyes:
Tony
How do you "notice the 4G technology" on current 4G phone? It just works. Jeez...give me a break here with just canned statements. :rolleyes:
Tony
awmazz
Mar 8, 10:17 AM
LOL!
In all seriousness...it'd be a hoot if they hired Emilio Estevez. Can you imagine the intra-family squabble that might set up?? :D
He already appeared in the show. Played an old friend of Charlie's who drops dead, prompting Charlie to rethink his own lifestyle. Perhaps that storyline was drawn from real life.
In all seriousness...it'd be a hoot if they hired Emilio Estevez. Can you imagine the intra-family squabble that might set up?? :D
He already appeared in the show. Played an old friend of Charlie's who drops dead, prompting Charlie to rethink his own lifestyle. Perhaps that storyline was drawn from real life.
PBF
Apr 14, 08:30 AM
Someone at iPhone Dev Forums said that iOS Simulator in Lion will gain ability to download/run apps.
That pretty much means that another "groundbreaking" feature in Lion is ability to run iOS apps (besides iOS Simulator).
That pretty much means that another "groundbreaking" feature in Lion is ability to run iOS apps (besides iOS Simulator).
iRobby
Apr 15, 01:35 PM
With the update notice officially stating When Lion ships this summer What are the chances the iMac refresh will happen at the same time? or will it be in the Fall instead?
more...
atari1356
Oct 24, 07:45 AM
From the press release:
"up to 39 percent faster than the previous 2.16 GHz MacBook Pro"
Really? I'd like to see those benchmarks... nice that they finally added FW800 back into the 15" model.
"up to 39 percent faster than the previous 2.16 GHz MacBook Pro"
Really? I'd like to see those benchmarks... nice that they finally added FW800 back into the 15" model.
zync
Jul 31, 12:11 PM
Mmm .. no. The reason you don't see it much is because XP SP2 is pretty rock solid as far as operating systems go.
If a machine reboots when you're typing an email, then folk would still register this as a crash.
He was talking about seeing blue screens. So it doesn't matter how many people would register it as a crash....they still wouldn't see a blue screen. That was the point he was trying to make.
Also, just as a side note...it took them three years to create the version you're talking about. I'm not stating this for argument�it's only here as additional info.
If a machine reboots when you're typing an email, then folk would still register this as a crash.
He was talking about seeing blue screens. So it doesn't matter how many people would register it as a crash....they still wouldn't see a blue screen. That was the point he was trying to make.
Also, just as a side note...it took them three years to create the version you're talking about. I'm not stating this for argument�it's only here as additional info.
more...
7on
Jul 25, 08:21 AM
I would like one, maybe convince my mom to buy me one... I'll give her my old 1-buttoner :-p
Detlev
Jul 26, 09:06 PM
I'm going to assume it doesn't mean that you actually control the thing without touching it, rather it just makes the wheel disappear when you aren't holding it. That seems to be a more useful idea.
I mean, otherwise, it's a useless feature, except to prevent screen scratching.
That is more likely. Even if a user did not have to touch the screen it would be extremely foreign to people to type or control a piece of hardware without actually touching it�air typing. Look at the new ATMs that are controlled on screen. You can see people reactions to the machine when it does not operate as assumed. They press harder on the screen :rolleyes:
I mean, otherwise, it's a useless feature, except to prevent screen scratching.
That is more likely. Even if a user did not have to touch the screen it would be extremely foreign to people to type or control a piece of hardware without actually touching it�air typing. Look at the new ATMs that are controlled on screen. You can see people reactions to the machine when it does not operate as assumed. They press harder on the screen :rolleyes:
more...
Apple OC
Apr 24, 07:29 PM
And how about if she has men's parts down there? Where does she belong then?
IMO the Men's washroom ... until he finishes with the transformation ... he is still just a cross dresser
IMO the Men's washroom ... until he finishes with the transformation ... he is still just a cross dresser
bedifferent
Apr 12, 09:57 AM
Intel says that direct connection to both PCIe and the graphics processor is required for Thunderbolt, but I wonder just why it would not be possible to use a PCIe card for a "data only" connection to external TB storage devices and leave the video to the existing connections? It seems to me that there should be a sufficiently large market for such a card to warrant third party development. I don't think that anyone would be upset at having a second connector for their display...seeing as how they have one now...and would be very happy to have a data connection quicker than FW 800.
Intel denies that Apple have an exclusive use of Thunderbolt, but it does not seem as though the PC motherboard manufacturers are making much of an effort to let people know that they will be offering Thunderbolt native motherboards anytime soon.
Boo! I didn't know it "required" a connection between the GPU and PCIe. I don't see the reasoning behind a direct connection to the GPU, anyone (not an engineer here)? I also agree, that for the sake of data connectivity, a PCIe card would be a realistic expectation. I certainly wouldn't be bothered with another connection, especially if that connection would eventually be the primary connection to my external devices ("Light Peak"/"ThunderBolt" does allow for daisy chaining?).
Intel denies that Apple have an exclusive use of Thunderbolt, but it does not seem as though the PC motherboard manufacturers are making much of an effort to let people know that they will be offering Thunderbolt native motherboards anytime soon.
Boo! I didn't know it "required" a connection between the GPU and PCIe. I don't see the reasoning behind a direct connection to the GPU, anyone (not an engineer here)? I also agree, that for the sake of data connectivity, a PCIe card would be a realistic expectation. I certainly wouldn't be bothered with another connection, especially if that connection would eventually be the primary connection to my external devices ("Light Peak"/"ThunderBolt" does allow for daisy chaining?).
more...
bad03xtreme
Apr 13, 02:22 PM
I don't see this happening, TV technology changes to fast to get stuck with an expensive TV that you need to keep for many years to justify the higher price.
Case in point the new Bose videowave TV it's over $5k for a 46" tv! :eek:
Case in point the new Bose videowave TV it's over $5k for a 46" tv! :eek:
dornoforpyros
Jul 24, 11:43 PM
pfft, I don't wanna hover my fingers above the iPod...I wanna use my brain!
more...
Mac-Addict
Oct 24, 08:49 AM
Does it come with the trolley needed to carry it? We're talking notebooks here :)
Correction...
*Truck
do you guys think i should just go ahead and buy a macbook then? i would love a MBP, but its to expensive.. im just a highschool student, and the black would really be great.
i dont know what to do :(
If you need it now buy it now! But when the macbooks get upgraded they may have a price drop and more ram and faster CPU and maybe even better graphics, just wait aslong as you can and if they havent had upgrades then your just gunna have to live with that..
Correction...
*Truck
do you guys think i should just go ahead and buy a macbook then? i would love a MBP, but its to expensive.. im just a highschool student, and the black would really be great.
i dont know what to do :(
If you need it now buy it now! But when the macbooks get upgraded they may have a price drop and more ram and faster CPU and maybe even better graphics, just wait aslong as you can and if they havent had upgrades then your just gunna have to live with that..
satkin2
Apr 15, 03:40 AM
Apps universal between iOS and OSX would make sense, an iWorks suite that you can run on either your Mac and finish on your iOS device, that would be really nice.
I wouldn't be suprised if this was just a coding error, but sometime in the future I can imagine that the ability to run the same apps on both systems will be possible.
I wouldn't be suprised if this was just a coding error, but sometime in the future I can imagine that the ability to run the same apps on both systems will be possible.
more...
Eldiablojoe
Apr 29, 04:21 PM
Aggie, you're the most silver-tongued devil I know. You could convince thebserpent in The Garden of Eden to eat the apple itself.
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.
more...
nishioka
Apr 24, 12:22 AM
Why?
I thought AT&T's buyout means T-Mobile is going bye-bye?
When one company acquires another like that, they don't just tear down all the old company's equipment and replace it with their own. If that were the case AT&T would simply skip over the whole mess with getting the deal approved by the US Department of Justice and the FCC and just buy a crapload of equipment to put up themselves with that $39 billion.
If the deal is approved T-Mobile's assets will be integrated into AT&T's network and AT&T is probably having all their handset manufacturers run similar testing on T-Mobile equipment to ensure compatibility.
Apple is not "wasting money" on a cell phone provider that is going away, and T-Mobile is not "getting" the iPhone.
I thought AT&T's buyout means T-Mobile is going bye-bye?
When one company acquires another like that, they don't just tear down all the old company's equipment and replace it with their own. If that were the case AT&T would simply skip over the whole mess with getting the deal approved by the US Department of Justice and the FCC and just buy a crapload of equipment to put up themselves with that $39 billion.
If the deal is approved T-Mobile's assets will be integrated into AT&T's network and AT&T is probably having all their handset manufacturers run similar testing on T-Mobile equipment to ensure compatibility.
Apple is not "wasting money" on a cell phone provider that is going away, and T-Mobile is not "getting" the iPhone.
Donz0r
Jul 25, 12:37 AM
That's SO Cool. I really do imagine seeing this in the full screen iPods. it's so wierd that I JUST TODAY described the rumored 'true video ipod' and she says " well the screen would get fingerprints all over it" which I had never thought of. This is Perfect. I don't think that apple will release a full screen rumored true video ipod Without something exactly like this.
This is not only plausable, but I really think that it's probable. I'd bet money on this being with the true video ipod.
This is not only plausable, but I really think that it's probable. I'd bet money on this being with the true video ipod.
Hobbes.
Apr 13, 07:59 PM
HA.
I'll believe it when I see it. I mean, yes this could delay the iP5 but then again i'm still betting that this wont happen.
It would be a TOTAL embarrassment for apple to release this alone. They made a joke of it at the iPad 2 event and putting it out alone so randomly would just further publicize that they failed to do it 10 months ago.
I'll believe it when I see it. I mean, yes this could delay the iP5 but then again i'm still betting that this wont happen.
It would be a TOTAL embarrassment for apple to release this alone. They made a joke of it at the iPad 2 event and putting it out alone so randomly would just further publicize that they failed to do it 10 months ago.
PtMD
Dec 1, 05:11 PM
I know I'm going to get labeled as a mac zealot and linux apologist for asking this, but isn't it weird how the project spent ALMOST ALL OF ITS TIME looking for ways to crucify OS X/Linux, but they avoided MS like the plague, as if they were afraid to make them look bad?
"I didn't have much time left for working on Microsoft Windows but I've received the most helpful feedback from the MSRC"
Riiiight. :p
Couldn't that be just because Windows security (or lack thereof) has already been thoroughly examined by the industry at large and therefore wasn't as high a priority?
"I didn't have much time left for working on Microsoft Windows but I've received the most helpful feedback from the MSRC"
Riiiight. :p
Couldn't that be just because Windows security (or lack thereof) has already been thoroughly examined by the industry at large and therefore wasn't as high a priority?
SciFrog
Oct 27, 10:08 AM
At 43 mins you get a 100% bonus, 17k PPD...
ciTiger
Apr 25, 01:17 PM
Finally! Some interesting Mac news! Get that refresh done so we can start talking about the MBP refresh!
RoboCop001
Apr 26, 12:58 PM
I'm hoping the MobileMe revamp means that some parts of the current service become free while things like this Music Cloud thing are part of the paid MobileMe.
This would mean that, as a paying subscriber I wouldn't need to pay extra for the Cloud Service since I'm already paying for the full MobileMe vs the free one with less features.
Whether it's the same yearly price or a reduced one would be cool, but if it's more expensive (I don't see why it would be if some basic features become free) then it wouldn't be worth it unless they add some new really awesome features to fill in the gap that the free parts would leave.
This would mean that, as a paying subscriber I wouldn't need to pay extra for the Cloud Service since I'm already paying for the full MobileMe vs the free one with less features.
Whether it's the same yearly price or a reduced one would be cool, but if it's more expensive (I don't see why it would be if some basic features become free) then it wouldn't be worth it unless they add some new really awesome features to fill in the gap that the free parts would leave.
inkswamp
Jul 28, 03:59 PM
$9,500,000,000 - that's just sitting around in cash with no long term debt. I think Apple's got plenty of "stamina"...
Exactly! I don't understand all this doom-and-gloom everytime MS talks about the music download market. They can't even get their friggin' OS out on time and we're supposed to worry that they can take over a highly competitive market that is still too new for anyone but Apple to really get their head around? I think not. Look at the video game market. After several years and two iterations of their precious XBox, they have still made hardly a dent in that market (despite all the headlines it gets, it's still no threat to Nintendo.)
Plus, you have to factor in the seemingly limitless well of great ideas that Apple has at their disposal that MS does not. MS may have a lot more cash to bully their way into the market, but Apple will continuously outfox them on the sheer basis that they have better ideas and are quick to the draw.
And, as if that's not enough, MS is trying to bully their way into many markets simultaneously while holding ground on the ones they dominate, so it's not like they can throw 100% of their assets at the music market. They have a lot of resources, but they are limited and are spread between gaming, Windows, office software, hardware, MSN, their search portal, .NET, Origami/tablet PC, etc. They are not all-powerful, and I think their effort in music will be halfhearted and ultimately unsuccessful.
And you know what else matters? The fact that when Steve Jobs gets up on stage and talks about music, you can tell that he's really passionate about it. He's not just up there to sell tunes. He's a music lover and other music lovers relate to that and appreciate it. It's infectious. And it matters. I've seen MS and other companies talk about music (most often while wearing a suit which is enough to stop you right there) and the way they talk--there's no passion. You can tell that they view it at arms-length, like some kind of commodity, and surround their efforts with insulting marketing campaigns that play down to the lowest common denominator and that does not help.
I don't think Apple has anything to worry about. As long as they keep going, they're fine. I see no reason to think otherwise.
Exactly! I don't understand all this doom-and-gloom everytime MS talks about the music download market. They can't even get their friggin' OS out on time and we're supposed to worry that they can take over a highly competitive market that is still too new for anyone but Apple to really get their head around? I think not. Look at the video game market. After several years and two iterations of their precious XBox, they have still made hardly a dent in that market (despite all the headlines it gets, it's still no threat to Nintendo.)
Plus, you have to factor in the seemingly limitless well of great ideas that Apple has at their disposal that MS does not. MS may have a lot more cash to bully their way into the market, but Apple will continuously outfox them on the sheer basis that they have better ideas and are quick to the draw.
And, as if that's not enough, MS is trying to bully their way into many markets simultaneously while holding ground on the ones they dominate, so it's not like they can throw 100% of their assets at the music market. They have a lot of resources, but they are limited and are spread between gaming, Windows, office software, hardware, MSN, their search portal, .NET, Origami/tablet PC, etc. They are not all-powerful, and I think their effort in music will be halfhearted and ultimately unsuccessful.
And you know what else matters? The fact that when Steve Jobs gets up on stage and talks about music, you can tell that he's really passionate about it. He's not just up there to sell tunes. He's a music lover and other music lovers relate to that and appreciate it. It's infectious. And it matters. I've seen MS and other companies talk about music (most often while wearing a suit which is enough to stop you right there) and the way they talk--there's no passion. You can tell that they view it at arms-length, like some kind of commodity, and surround their efforts with insulting marketing campaigns that play down to the lowest common denominator and that does not help.
I don't think Apple has anything to worry about. As long as they keep going, they're fine. I see no reason to think otherwise.