adrianblaine
Oct 24, 05:50 AM
thats so annoying now, you buy one new MacBook Pro then 6 months later its out dated. Im not saying its useless but c'mon.
It is hard to expect anything else. Just about every computer you buy is already outdated the minute you get it, they just aren't able to produce the better stuff in mass yet... I would like to have an outdated computer more than a current one for any great length of time, so that when I need a new one they are that much better instead of only slightly better.
It is hard to expect anything else. Just about every computer you buy is already outdated the minute you get it, they just aren't able to produce the better stuff in mass yet... I would like to have an outdated computer more than a current one for any great length of time, so that when I need a new one they are that much better instead of only slightly better.
ValSalva
Jun 23, 12:08 PM
iOS on a real Mac seems about as pointless as Microsoft Bob on Windows.
:D I like your comparison.
:D I like your comparison.
Multimedia
Aug 31, 12:32 PM
What about this report of a silent mini update already in the pipeline on the French HardMac website? (http://www.hardmac.com/news/2006-08-31/#5869) :)
"I have ordered a Mac mini Core solo with 1GB of RAM last Saturday to use it as a server, and what a surprise when I received the box!
My Mac mini has been upgraded:
- Core Duo 1.66GHz instead of Core Solo 1.5GHz
- HD 100GB instead of 60GB
- and a SuperDrive instead of a Combo!
Thanks Apple !
On the box, the specifications are those of a Mac mini Core Solo..."Wow! Fantastic for $599. Awesome! Exactly what I was hoping for - esp the 100GB HD. Looking great. I wonder why the Apple Website Store hasn't been updated to reflect this change? :confused: Surely all in the pipeline that were 1.5 solo are now 1.66 duo. Perhaps Apple doesn't want Joe Blow to know so the rest of the solos can GO with the Blows? :D
That's gotta be the biggest increase in power in recent Apple history for no additional cost - twice the cores running faster than the previous one. Maybe back in the G4 days something like this happened. But it wasn't at the bottom of the line for $599. And it CERTAINLY wasn't unannounced and not even on the packaging!
I'm very excited for all the mini buyers out there. Congrats if you get one like this before Apple admits they are in the pipeline.
"I have ordered a Mac mini Core solo with 1GB of RAM last Saturday to use it as a server, and what a surprise when I received the box!
My Mac mini has been upgraded:
- Core Duo 1.66GHz instead of Core Solo 1.5GHz
- HD 100GB instead of 60GB
- and a SuperDrive instead of a Combo!
Thanks Apple !
On the box, the specifications are those of a Mac mini Core Solo..."Wow! Fantastic for $599. Awesome! Exactly what I was hoping for - esp the 100GB HD. Looking great. I wonder why the Apple Website Store hasn't been updated to reflect this change? :confused: Surely all in the pipeline that were 1.5 solo are now 1.66 duo. Perhaps Apple doesn't want Joe Blow to know so the rest of the solos can GO with the Blows? :D
That's gotta be the biggest increase in power in recent Apple history for no additional cost - twice the cores running faster than the previous one. Maybe back in the G4 days something like this happened. But it wasn't at the bottom of the line for $599. And it CERTAINLY wasn't unannounced and not even on the packaging!
I'm very excited for all the mini buyers out there. Congrats if you get one like this before Apple admits they are in the pipeline.
macgeek18
Feb 18, 01:49 AM
No, I'm reclassing (from Infantry to Intelligence Analyst) here in Utah, and my Army National Guard unit is MOB'ing as soon as I'm done with this. I've been in for 6 years. I extended for an extra year to go with them again.
Good for you. Thanks for serving our country. :)
I enlisted in the US Army last week. I go in end of 2012 after I finish my degree. My job is IT Spec. Fitting isn't it. :)
Good for you. Thanks for serving our country. :)
I enlisted in the US Army last week. I go in end of 2012 after I finish my degree. My job is IT Spec. Fitting isn't it. :)
Doctor Q
Nov 28, 11:42 AM
Money talks. A big ad campaign will produce much increased Zune sales.
And it's also true for Apple. Many people buy iPods because they have seen all of those TV ads and billboards, not because they did extensive comparison shopping.
Come to think of it, a good number of iPod purchasers are filling demands of their kids, who specifically plead for iPods. And kids are greatly influenced by advertising.
And it's also true for Apple. Many people buy iPods because they have seen all of those TV ads and billboards, not because they did extensive comparison shopping.
Come to think of it, a good number of iPod purchasers are filling demands of their kids, who specifically plead for iPods. And kids are greatly influenced by advertising.
dime21
Apr 20, 09:26 PM
sorry no longer the case for most of that.
Manuals now cost more to buy than autos due to fewer of them being built so supply is lower.
No really cheaper to maintain. Hell manuals can go 200+k with out the tranny or the engine needing to be pulled. Manuals sorry you have to pull one of those items ever 100k miles to replace the clutch. That eats up the saving so at best it is a break even in that department.
Tranny might last longer but that is about it. Still has to be pulled ever 100k to replace clutch. Hell an auto tranny will out last the car any how so a non issue.
Power wise yes auto is going to eat a little more of the power off the engine but really not much less than the manuals eat due to modern hydrolics and more physical locking together of the engine and tranny.
Fuel economy. Sorry no longer the case. High way the get the same due to the fact that the tranny of both are physically locked to with the engine so no gain there. City mileage Autos can and often times do get better MPG even more so with the modern CVT. CVT for the extra gear ratios and on top of that you have computer controlled shifting that can time it quicker and faster and at better points for MPG than any human can.
Even Autos now have 5-7 gears so that gain is even lost from the manuals. They have the same number of gears pretty much standard now.
Now control. I will give you that. but that is about it.
sorry, but wherever you got your information, it is not correct. fwiw, my last car, a vw passat, i sold with 312k miles on it. i bought it new at the dealer. still had the original clutch. your 100k replacement claim is bogus.
highway mileage is different due to gear ratios, not "physically locked". automatics use different ratios than manuals, even with same engine. shift speed is irrelevant for mileage.
and lastly, manuals do not cost more. every car i've ever owned, new or old, including my 2007 porsche 911, have come standard with a manual transmission. if you want automatic, that's an option you pay extra for, several $thousand in some cases. i've never owned an American car, so maybe the domestics are different, but your blanket statement is still wrong.
on my wife's mercedes, it needs automatic fluid change every 30k miles. dealer charges ~$300 for this. That's $1000 in service in 90k miles assuming nothing breaks. My manual transmission requires no service or fluid changes for 100k miles. $1000 in maintenance vs $0 in maintenance. automatic is far more expensive from a maintenance standpoint.
Manuals now cost more to buy than autos due to fewer of them being built so supply is lower.
No really cheaper to maintain. Hell manuals can go 200+k with out the tranny or the engine needing to be pulled. Manuals sorry you have to pull one of those items ever 100k miles to replace the clutch. That eats up the saving so at best it is a break even in that department.
Tranny might last longer but that is about it. Still has to be pulled ever 100k to replace clutch. Hell an auto tranny will out last the car any how so a non issue.
Power wise yes auto is going to eat a little more of the power off the engine but really not much less than the manuals eat due to modern hydrolics and more physical locking together of the engine and tranny.
Fuel economy. Sorry no longer the case. High way the get the same due to the fact that the tranny of both are physically locked to with the engine so no gain there. City mileage Autos can and often times do get better MPG even more so with the modern CVT. CVT for the extra gear ratios and on top of that you have computer controlled shifting that can time it quicker and faster and at better points for MPG than any human can.
Even Autos now have 5-7 gears so that gain is even lost from the manuals. They have the same number of gears pretty much standard now.
Now control. I will give you that. but that is about it.
sorry, but wherever you got your information, it is not correct. fwiw, my last car, a vw passat, i sold with 312k miles on it. i bought it new at the dealer. still had the original clutch. your 100k replacement claim is bogus.
highway mileage is different due to gear ratios, not "physically locked". automatics use different ratios than manuals, even with same engine. shift speed is irrelevant for mileage.
and lastly, manuals do not cost more. every car i've ever owned, new or old, including my 2007 porsche 911, have come standard with a manual transmission. if you want automatic, that's an option you pay extra for, several $thousand in some cases. i've never owned an American car, so maybe the domestics are different, but your blanket statement is still wrong.
on my wife's mercedes, it needs automatic fluid change every 30k miles. dealer charges ~$300 for this. That's $1000 in service in 90k miles assuming nothing breaks. My manual transmission requires no service or fluid changes for 100k miles. $1000 in maintenance vs $0 in maintenance. automatic is far more expensive from a maintenance standpoint.
Rocketman
Jan 3, 03:30 PM
Anyway do you guys think a ultra portable Apple laptop is in the works?
Like say a 12 inch Macbook Pro?
I for one don't. I think what the rumors are referring to is a "netboot" device over wi-max (and Edge or its replacement) in a handheld form factor.
32gb or so of flash or P-RAM local storage would allow reasobable pre-fetch of 1/4HD and any streams you are following. Computer apps take a small fraction of the storage and bandwidth of video apps. Plenty of room for battery in such a device too per Shuffle.
This addresses the ultra-portable market, the post newton market, the video iPod market (mobile TiVo), the iChat and text message market, and the crackberry replacement market.
Think about it. You are talking with Apple's or your server, or a Google server of all your content of all types on a device capable of mobile broadband and reasonable display (perhaps 1/4 HD). You have earbuds in too.
Rocketman
Like say a 12 inch Macbook Pro?
I for one don't. I think what the rumors are referring to is a "netboot" device over wi-max (and Edge or its replacement) in a handheld form factor.
32gb or so of flash or P-RAM local storage would allow reasobable pre-fetch of 1/4HD and any streams you are following. Computer apps take a small fraction of the storage and bandwidth of video apps. Plenty of room for battery in such a device too per Shuffle.
This addresses the ultra-portable market, the post newton market, the video iPod market (mobile TiVo), the iChat and text message market, and the crackberry replacement market.
Think about it. You are talking with Apple's or your server, or a Google server of all your content of all types on a device capable of mobile broadband and reasonable display (perhaps 1/4 HD). You have earbuds in too.
Rocketman
Mike84
Apr 26, 02:15 PM
Your point is that you cannot find such a trademark as "app store" in the standard character format because "app store" is too general right? The other person posted that "pet store" would be a ridiculous example of this.
Ok fair enough. Pet store was registered in the stylized or design format.
But your basic argument against Apple is that they cannot use app store as a trademark in the broader text format because it is too general. But this is not the only example of such a thing.
If this is the case then Apple Store will be thrown out too. It is the same type of trademark. Two words, not one and not preceded by "the".
App Store
Apple Store
The other argument is that "app" is too generic and that the term was around prior to the trademark. I do not believe this is valid either as "app" may have existed but was not widely used. The argument would have been used agains the prior trademark of "appstore" in that case.
One thing is for sure. Our opinions will have no bearing on the final outcome.
You define the lexicon of the overall society?
I think you are missing the point:
"What are some other reasons for refusing registration?
Registration may be refused if the mark is:
• Descriptive for the goods/services;
• A geographic term;
• A surname;
• Ornamental as applied to the goods"
Source: http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/basics/BasicFacts_with_correct_links.pdf
App Store is descriptive of what it does. In other words, it sells apps or applications. Therefore, it cannot be trademarked. Apple can use it if they want, but so can anyone else doing the same thing.
This is pretty much saying that Microsoft is going to trademark Operating System. Both Microsoft and Apple make operating systems. What Windows is is a type of operating system. Windows does not describe the product.
Example:
Shop that sells windows cannot trademark "Window Seller" because it describes precisely what the shop does. It is generic + descriptive = no trademark.
Ok fair enough. Pet store was registered in the stylized or design format.
But your basic argument against Apple is that they cannot use app store as a trademark in the broader text format because it is too general. But this is not the only example of such a thing.
If this is the case then Apple Store will be thrown out too. It is the same type of trademark. Two words, not one and not preceded by "the".
App Store
Apple Store
The other argument is that "app" is too generic and that the term was around prior to the trademark. I do not believe this is valid either as "app" may have existed but was not widely used. The argument would have been used agains the prior trademark of "appstore" in that case.
One thing is for sure. Our opinions will have no bearing on the final outcome.
You define the lexicon of the overall society?
I think you are missing the point:
"What are some other reasons for refusing registration?
Registration may be refused if the mark is:
• Descriptive for the goods/services;
• A geographic term;
• A surname;
• Ornamental as applied to the goods"
Source: http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/basics/BasicFacts_with_correct_links.pdf
App Store is descriptive of what it does. In other words, it sells apps or applications. Therefore, it cannot be trademarked. Apple can use it if they want, but so can anyone else doing the same thing.
This is pretty much saying that Microsoft is going to trademark Operating System. Both Microsoft and Apple make operating systems. What Windows is is a type of operating system. Windows does not describe the product.
Example:
Shop that sells windows cannot trademark "Window Seller" because it describes precisely what the shop does. It is generic + descriptive = no trademark.
slffl
Apr 26, 09:20 PM
Count me in there.
Apple have become Big Brother and Big Bully lately.
In the past they trod more lightly.
Oh give me a break! Maybe it's because all you read are the headlines which focus on Apple. Apple has no more lawsuits than any other company out there, not to mention the private lawsuits against Apple for dumb ass stuff like 'tracking', antennas, batteries, etc. etc. etc.....
Apple have become Big Brother and Big Bully lately.
In the past they trod more lightly.
Oh give me a break! Maybe it's because all you read are the headlines which focus on Apple. Apple has no more lawsuits than any other company out there, not to mention the private lawsuits against Apple for dumb ass stuff like 'tracking', antennas, batteries, etc. etc. etc.....
kelving525
Sep 14, 08:58 PM
@kelving525 - Which BB did you get the Belkin from? I'm about to cave and get the light blue one. Also, it really looks like a dark blue in your pics, is it really purple?
NYC-- there are 6 of them I went to and each sells different cases. Some more than others. Yes, it is dark purple. ;)
NYC-- there are 6 of them I went to and each sells different cases. Some more than others. Yes, it is dark purple. ;)
chutch15
Sep 12, 09:43 PM
The photos on the BestBuy and Belkin websites are pretty good as far as fit and shine, but they do show the color as way too light and much too purpley. It's much darker and much closer to midnight blue than violet. It certain light there is a very slight violet hue, but it's a very cool deep color.
Here is the best I can do for a photo right now...
http://ghostland.com/nightsky.jpg
Here is the best I can do for a photo right now...
http://ghostland.com/nightsky.jpg
peapody
Nov 23, 05:49 PM
Hmm. Do you know the total on all of the posts? :p
What do you think of it? If it seems good, and if they release one for the iPT, then I might get one.
ASK and you shall receive!!
28,530 posts!! see original post!!
What do you think of it? If it seems good, and if they release one for the iPT, then I might get one.
ASK and you shall receive!!
28,530 posts!! see original post!!
syklee26
Sep 1, 12:04 PM
i don't think this rumor will come out to be true because this might take a lot of people from getting Mac Pro, unless this iMac comes out to be north of $2500, at which point nobody will buy this.
Eidorian
May 2, 09:48 PM
I wonder what is going to happen to the Dashboard.
MicroByte
Sep 14, 12:21 PM
I went to BB yesterday and I saw the Grip Vue, but I was disappointed that they only have sharp colors. What happened to the colors from the 2G/3G??
No kidding! You would have thourhg a basic color would have been included in the line up!
I'm tempted by the green now, it would definitely be easier for me to find around the house when I misplace it!
No kidding! You would have thourhg a basic color would have been included in the line up!
I'm tempted by the green now, it would definitely be easier for me to find around the house when I misplace it!
Random Passerby
Oct 24, 01:19 AM
I should be posting to the 'update before the holiday season' string to help it get to 4000 posts - but I was wondering at what time of day would an update happen, were it to happen?
nagromme
Sep 14, 11:57 AM
Consumer Reports is making five mistakes:
1. Not doing full-scale testing of the kind antenna engineers have called them out on. They’ve done informal testing—quick and easy, but not the full useful facts their readers deserve. Yes, that kind of testing would need some really expensive facilities and lots of time. So they should at least point out that their tests are very limited and may be misleading.
2. Not publishing stats on how many users actually lose calls over this. They do surveys all the time—how about one comparing the iPhone 4 to other phones in actual use? (Most of the iPhone 4 antenna complaints seem to come from people who don’t own one!)
3. Criticizing only the iPhone, not other phones, for losing signal when gripped wrong. (Which all phones clearly do. Some more, some less. Many of them tell you right in the manual not to “hold it that way!")
4. Exaggerating the problem. Putting a very rare and minor issue, that affects so few, ahead of so many positives that affect everyone: benefits no other phone can touch. How are their flaws (which no case can fix) vs. the iPhone acceptable? And does CR clearly state that they DO recommend the iPhone for case users—which is a huge (maybe the largest) group of phone users?
5. Standing on their ego (or worrying misguidedly about their reputation) and not refining their position when that is clearly called for. Black-and-white controversial simplicity sells mindshare and magazines. But it doesn’t reflect reality, and CR readers deserve better. CR should be willing to back down when they’ve gone too far. Example: “The iPhone 4’s antenna flaws are rarely an issue and it’s the best smartphone we reviewed. But because we don’t know what each buyer will experience, we are only able to fully recommend the iPhone 4 if you also use a case. Luckily, Apple will continue to supply one free of charge on request, so this antenna issue need not affect your calls nor your wallet."
I only trust CR’s large-scale survey data (they seem to be good at that) not their editorial content. They’ve consitently failed to note Apple’s legitimate strengths over the years (ever see an article helping the everyday buyer choose between OS X and Windows?) but never fail to make something out the negatives. That’s not helping an uninformed reader become informed. And it really does seem like an anti-Apple bias sometimes.
That is precisely what auto manufacturers do. They send a letter to every owner, and fix the problem, whether or not the owner has reported it.
And that kind of preventive mass action makes sense for a product that holds peoples’ lives in its hands every moment of use.
It’s absurd to suggest that Apple should “fix” a problem as though it were widespread, when it’s not. Fixing it when it IS a problem is all that is necessary. And then let the non-iPhone users continue to moan about how bad Apple is treating us contented iPhone users :D They believe a blog wildfire over actual user experience—or at least they enjoy fanning the wildfire?
1. Not doing full-scale testing of the kind antenna engineers have called them out on. They’ve done informal testing—quick and easy, but not the full useful facts their readers deserve. Yes, that kind of testing would need some really expensive facilities and lots of time. So they should at least point out that their tests are very limited and may be misleading.
2. Not publishing stats on how many users actually lose calls over this. They do surveys all the time—how about one comparing the iPhone 4 to other phones in actual use? (Most of the iPhone 4 antenna complaints seem to come from people who don’t own one!)
3. Criticizing only the iPhone, not other phones, for losing signal when gripped wrong. (Which all phones clearly do. Some more, some less. Many of them tell you right in the manual not to “hold it that way!")
4. Exaggerating the problem. Putting a very rare and minor issue, that affects so few, ahead of so many positives that affect everyone: benefits no other phone can touch. How are their flaws (which no case can fix) vs. the iPhone acceptable? And does CR clearly state that they DO recommend the iPhone for case users—which is a huge (maybe the largest) group of phone users?
5. Standing on their ego (or worrying misguidedly about their reputation) and not refining their position when that is clearly called for. Black-and-white controversial simplicity sells mindshare and magazines. But it doesn’t reflect reality, and CR readers deserve better. CR should be willing to back down when they’ve gone too far. Example: “The iPhone 4’s antenna flaws are rarely an issue and it’s the best smartphone we reviewed. But because we don’t know what each buyer will experience, we are only able to fully recommend the iPhone 4 if you also use a case. Luckily, Apple will continue to supply one free of charge on request, so this antenna issue need not affect your calls nor your wallet."
I only trust CR’s large-scale survey data (they seem to be good at that) not their editorial content. They’ve consitently failed to note Apple’s legitimate strengths over the years (ever see an article helping the everyday buyer choose between OS X and Windows?) but never fail to make something out the negatives. That’s not helping an uninformed reader become informed. And it really does seem like an anti-Apple bias sometimes.
That is precisely what auto manufacturers do. They send a letter to every owner, and fix the problem, whether or not the owner has reported it.
And that kind of preventive mass action makes sense for a product that holds peoples’ lives in its hands every moment of use.
It’s absurd to suggest that Apple should “fix” a problem as though it were widespread, when it’s not. Fixing it when it IS a problem is all that is necessary. And then let the non-iPhone users continue to moan about how bad Apple is treating us contented iPhone users :D They believe a blog wildfire over actual user experience—or at least they enjoy fanning the wildfire?
TheManOfSilver
Dec 10, 06:43 PM
I posted this a while ago - but I think Jobs was hinting that apple wants to be everywhere. iPod is a lifestyle product, as is the iTv.
Apple has proven that they have a true understanding of the user experience, and can spread that halo wherever a user may go. Hence the iPod's success, and perhaps the iTv and phone future success.
Bottom line, wherever there is media, apple wants to be there, showing everyone how to do it the best way.
I agree with your line about Apple wanting to be in multiple places. The one place I see them finally going themselves is the car ... not designing a car, but rather replacing the head unit on your car with a true video ipod interface. No onboard HD, just a true 3" video interface that shows your iPod's content just as it would on your iPod, while it's safely stowed in your glovebox, armrest, etc.
No one has done iPod integration right yet, because no one is Apple. Apple could go the route of designing a new iCar head unit itself for aftermarket sales and could sign deals with the automakers to offer it as an optional feature. They could partner with a big name in high quality car audio to get the sound quality right, but they would design the front end.
Perfect opportunity for Apple to fill a need that no one is addressing in an elegant, simple fashion.
Apple has proven that they have a true understanding of the user experience, and can spread that halo wherever a user may go. Hence the iPod's success, and perhaps the iTv and phone future success.
Bottom line, wherever there is media, apple wants to be there, showing everyone how to do it the best way.
I agree with your line about Apple wanting to be in multiple places. The one place I see them finally going themselves is the car ... not designing a car, but rather replacing the head unit on your car with a true video ipod interface. No onboard HD, just a true 3" video interface that shows your iPod's content just as it would on your iPod, while it's safely stowed in your glovebox, armrest, etc.
No one has done iPod integration right yet, because no one is Apple. Apple could go the route of designing a new iCar head unit itself for aftermarket sales and could sign deals with the automakers to offer it as an optional feature. They could partner with a big name in high quality car audio to get the sound quality right, but they would design the front end.
Perfect opportunity for Apple to fill a need that no one is addressing in an elegant, simple fashion.
kntgsp
Sep 14, 10:46 AM
The way CR seems to approach it (and I might have to reread their article that they keep changing and updating and reaffirming and I lost interest a while ago) is as if they approached a computer review like this:
"The aluminum Macbook can survive a 3 foot fall and still function. The aluminum Macbook will not melt on the stove."
"The plastic Toshiba can survive a 2.8 foot fall and still function. The plastic Toshiba will melt on the stove."
They then give excess weight to the latter statements about each laptop despite it not really being a normal use scenario and declare the Toshiba not recommendable. So what's the point? Is "not melting on a stove" an advantage? Sure. Is there a reason you should have a computer on a stove? No.
It seems like it's more fair to stress the importance of the initial normal use results than the secondary observations that have nothing to do with everyday usage and are not representative of what people will be doing with the device.
Of course that kind of reasoning is often met with "you can't tell a user how they should use a device". I agree, you can't. However when you label something not recommendable based essentially entirely on the extra -3dB attenuation (compared to my Galaxy S) and the fact that if you place the device on a flat surface and bridge the antenna with your finger you get the same extra -3dB attenuation, I fail to see the credible argument.
/yes I realize the pinky finger attenuation while laying a phone on a table is not destructive like cooking a laptop is. They are both about as relevant to everyday usage in my opinion.
"The aluminum Macbook can survive a 3 foot fall and still function. The aluminum Macbook will not melt on the stove."
"The plastic Toshiba can survive a 2.8 foot fall and still function. The plastic Toshiba will melt on the stove."
They then give excess weight to the latter statements about each laptop despite it not really being a normal use scenario and declare the Toshiba not recommendable. So what's the point? Is "not melting on a stove" an advantage? Sure. Is there a reason you should have a computer on a stove? No.
It seems like it's more fair to stress the importance of the initial normal use results than the secondary observations that have nothing to do with everyday usage and are not representative of what people will be doing with the device.
Of course that kind of reasoning is often met with "you can't tell a user how they should use a device". I agree, you can't. However when you label something not recommendable based essentially entirely on the extra -3dB attenuation (compared to my Galaxy S) and the fact that if you place the device on a flat surface and bridge the antenna with your finger you get the same extra -3dB attenuation, I fail to see the credible argument.
/yes I realize the pinky finger attenuation while laying a phone on a table is not destructive like cooking a laptop is. They are both about as relevant to everyday usage in my opinion.
NebulaClash
Sep 14, 10:37 AM
I think it's a fair question to ask as well. Since all phones have this issue to one degree or another, why is it Apple who got singled out? Because they are the mindshare leaders. If you are Greenpeace and you want to get publicity, call out Apple. If you are Consumer Reports and you want headlines, call out Apple.
When the iPhone 5 comes out, I guarantee there will be stories published about signal issues with it. It's now the standard playbook to use against Apple, and the media goes along with it.
I'm a Consumer Reports subscriber, but I know their tech coverage is spotty at best. Sometimes it's laughably wrong. And too many people take their word as gospel instead of just one more useful data point. Heh, it's funny but as this thread is developing I just got a subscriber email from them asking for a $26 donation to them so they can continue to buy the products they test. I'll pay them $26 because I believe in their non-advertiser supported model.
But I wish they would not feed the anti-Apple FUD playbook. Yes, Apple absolutely should be called out for a design flaw, one that they are going to fix, but let's not blow it out of proportion the way it was. And let's not be hypocritical and call out Apple while giving a pass to everyone else with similar issues. That's the problem I'm focusing on.
When the iPhone 5 comes out, I guarantee there will be stories published about signal issues with it. It's now the standard playbook to use against Apple, and the media goes along with it.
I'm a Consumer Reports subscriber, but I know their tech coverage is spotty at best. Sometimes it's laughably wrong. And too many people take their word as gospel instead of just one more useful data point. Heh, it's funny but as this thread is developing I just got a subscriber email from them asking for a $26 donation to them so they can continue to buy the products they test. I'll pay them $26 because I believe in their non-advertiser supported model.
But I wish they would not feed the anti-Apple FUD playbook. Yes, Apple absolutely should be called out for a design flaw, one that they are going to fix, but let's not blow it out of proportion the way it was. And let's not be hypocritical and call out Apple while giving a pass to everyone else with similar issues. That's the problem I'm focusing on.
hakuryuu
Apr 11, 02:47 AM
I honestly cringe at the thought of driving an automatic at this point. I learned on an auto but i've driven a stick for the last 7 years (much of that in Los Angeles traffic) and when I wasn't in my car I was on my motorcycle (love sequential gearboxes). I like the control I have over the car and even in a car that isn't fast it makes driving more fun as long as the box isn't crap.
However I find myself looking at a lot of cars that don't even offer a manual these days :( and I am going to be getting myself something relatively new in the next year or two (though it quite likely will be another Triumph motorcycle)
However I find myself looking at a lot of cars that don't even offer a manual these days :( and I am going to be getting myself something relatively new in the next year or two (though it quite likely will be another Triumph motorcycle)
Apple OC
Mar 21, 07:21 PM
The gist of the statements currently coming from UN-mandated coalition members seems to be that once that "all necessary measures" have been taken to protect Libyans under attack by Gaddafi loyalists, the coalition military will simply seek to maintain that protection. Any political progess from that point on will have to be negotiated between Gaddafi, the Arab League, and the UN.
It will be important to get the Arab League onboard, but just now they are pretty distracted with internal instability and rarely agree on anything anyways. They neither want to keep Gaddafi around nor show him the door.
I agree ... interesting progress this UN decision has become, the Arab partners seem to now be on the fence.
Getting Gaddafi to step down seems like a logical solution ... however that may not happen if he tries to all of a sudden play ball a bit.
It will be important to get the Arab League onboard, but just now they are pretty distracted with internal instability and rarely agree on anything anyways. They neither want to keep Gaddafi around nor show him the door.
I agree ... interesting progress this UN decision has become, the Arab partners seem to now be on the fence.
Getting Gaddafi to step down seems like a logical solution ... however that may not happen if he tries to all of a sudden play ball a bit.
MikeDTyke
Nov 30, 07:31 AM
If the iTV is going to cost £100, it will need to do something pretty special to be a success - everything that Microsoft offerings can do at the very least.
The quoted price is $299 which nominally translates to £157 + Apple stiff a brit tax + Government screw yer countryman tax.
I'm expecting £199.
If you think the iTV will do everything that a media centre pc circa(£800) does then i want to know what you are smoking?
It'll be a highly focused 1st release ie, everything in the Sept presentation + RSS feeds rebranded as clever channels, delivering usual junk off YouTube and Google video.
Games, ichat, online imovie editing, they'll be in patch releases, when you buy iTV 2 or never, cos Steve thinks those things suck ass on a TV.
The quoted price is $299 which nominally translates to £157 + Apple stiff a brit tax + Government screw yer countryman tax.
I'm expecting £199.
If you think the iTV will do everything that a media centre pc circa(£800) does then i want to know what you are smoking?
It'll be a highly focused 1st release ie, everything in the Sept presentation + RSS feeds rebranded as clever channels, delivering usual junk off YouTube and Google video.
Games, ichat, online imovie editing, they'll be in patch releases, when you buy iTV 2 or never, cos Steve thinks those things suck ass on a TV.
aiqw9182
Mar 25, 09:17 AM
Why doesn't the IGP have OpenCL support?
Because the Sandy Bridge IGP was not designed to do any sort of GPGPU work, point blank. We will have to wait for Ivy Bridge(next major release from Intel after Sandy Bridge) for GPGPU/OpenCL support on Intel's IGP.
Because the Sandy Bridge IGP was not designed to do any sort of GPGPU work, point blank. We will have to wait for Ivy Bridge(next major release from Intel after Sandy Bridge) for GPGPU/OpenCL support on Intel's IGP.
No comments:
Post a Comment