FloatingBones
Nov 25, 12:34 AM
For the last time, STOP SPEAKING FOR OTHER PEOPLE!!! You have NO right what-so-ever to speak for anyone but yourself and yet you continue to state that EVER SINGLE iOS USER hates Flash and is glad to be rid of it and yet this Skyfire app proves just the opposite.
What I said: Users of the 120M+ iOS devices are doing just fine without Flash plugins is completely true. There are no Flash plugins for this device. Nobody can run a shred of Flash content in their browser on this device.
No amount of nonsensical shouting will change the facts.
You have every right to give your opinion on the matter, but it is your opinion, not the opinion of every single iOS user in existence.
But owners of those 120M+ iOS devices are doing just fine without Flash. Nobody forced them to buy those devices. If they were somehow "disappointed" because there are no Flash plugins available, nobody prevented them from returning them or reselling them.
That is NOT a shortcoming of Flash dude.
Also incorrect. There are huge shortcomings of Flash, and you've never addressed them.
You've never addressed the identity-leaking of Flash cookies: Flash doesn't honor the cookie privacy settings of the browser. 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) Do you actually like the fact that those sites do an end-run around the cookie privacy settings by using Flash? I can't find a single rational person that likes the identity-leaking.
You've never addressed the quirkiness that Flash brings to the browser UI. On my Mac, scrolling works differently when my mouse is over a Flash region. Certain keyboard shortcuts cease to work. Text that appears 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.
The engineering choice made for iOS is simplicity. Layering Flash on top of the browser would compromise that simplicity. Click-to-flash semantics would add yet another layer of clutter and obfuscation to the UI.
You've never addressed Adobe's inability to deal competently to secure their software. 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) Besides Flash, 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 Apple enabled Flash in iOS Safari, they would be farming out the correct operation of their iOS browser to a company that has proven to be one of the least competent companies in dealing with malware attacks. Noted security expert Steve Gibson mocks their cluelessness:
"[Adobe:] how is that quarterly update cycle going for you?" (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt)
I have yet to find a single Flash enthusiast who can address those issues. I'm hardly surprised that you can't address them, either.
That is a shortcoming of Steve Jobs' choosing.
Nonsense. They are engineering and design choices. If Apple made bad engineering and design choices, they would never have sold 120M+ of these devices.
If you think they are a "shortcoming": there are simple solutions. Don't buy an iOS device. If you did buy one, sell it. Or maybe you can see if it will blend (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAl28d6tbko).
One thing is certain: Apple will not compromise their iOS browser with Flash, and complaining about that is rather silly.
Even if Flash is on the road to becoming obsolete, that doesn't mean people don't want to be able to access the entire Web in the here and now.
Adobe Flash is on the road to becoming obsolete. Even Adobe acknowledges the fact (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999).
Between the 120M+ iOS devices, the click-to-flash plugins disable Flash downloads on Windows, Mac OS X and Linux machines, and Adobe's new Flash-to-HTML5 conversion tools (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999), the abandonment of Flash will continue to accelerate.
You just don't seem to comprehend that.
You are correct. Flash is a legacy technology, and its day has passed.
You seem to have this deep seated hatred of Flash
There are fundamental failings in both the design and deployment of Flash. I listed three of those earlier in my reply.
The thing that got my attention was when I realized that Flash was maintaining its own set of cookies and that those cookies did not honor the privacy settings of my browser. I then learned about click-to-flash plugins to minimize my exposure to Flash. The shocking thing to me was how much disabling Flash improved the browsing experience: faster page loads, less flashing advertisements, and far less CPU usage.
and I can tell that if Steve had said "I LOVE Flash" instead you would almost undoubtedly be here fighting against HTML5 and for Flash.
You imply that I blindly agree with Apple's (and Jobs's) decisions. That is not the case.
I strongly disagree with Apple's decision to prevent Hypermac from selling external batteries for Mac computers (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1032695). Hypermac makes a quality product, and they are filling a niche that Apple ignores. Magsafe is a wonderful technology, but they should be licensing this tech to third-party vendors. I fondly hope that Apple addresses this deficiency in their strategy and product accessories soon.
If you search, you can find where I commented on this in the public record weeks ago.
Yes, I honestly believe that. You have no vested interest in either one. You're just being Steve's doormat.
Now you know better.
I see no reason why ANYONE should have to convert to HTML5.
Too many laptop users are tired of the CPU loading and battery suck of Flash apps.
Too many users don't like that Flash alters the UI inside of the browsers: altered scrolling behavior, keyboard shortcuts that don't work in Flash, text searches that don't work with text in a Flash app.
Too many privacy advocates are bothered that Flash maintains a separate set of cookies and those cookies do not honor the privacy settings of the browser. Commercial websites are using those Flash cookies to track users. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-209.txt)
Too many security advocates are wary of using Adobe products because of Adobe's poor track record against security attacks.
Even if all those four large concerns were addressed, websites have to deal with the growing number of users that use Flash-blocking plugins. Advertisers that deliver their ads with Flash have no guarantee that users will allow those Flash apps to be downloaded and run on their machines.
Those are the reasons why Flash's viability for delivering web content is in decline. Even if you don't see the reasons, Adobe does (http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2010/10/adobe-demos-flash-to-html5-conversion-tool.html).
What I said: Users of the 120M+ iOS devices are doing just fine without Flash plugins is completely true. There are no Flash plugins for this device. Nobody can run a shred of Flash content in their browser on this device.
No amount of nonsensical shouting will change the facts.
You have every right to give your opinion on the matter, but it is your opinion, not the opinion of every single iOS user in existence.
But owners of those 120M+ iOS devices are doing just fine without Flash. Nobody forced them to buy those devices. If they were somehow "disappointed" because there are no Flash plugins available, nobody prevented them from returning them or reselling them.
That is NOT a shortcoming of Flash dude.
Also incorrect. There are huge shortcomings of Flash, and you've never addressed them.
You've never addressed the identity-leaking of Flash cookies: Flash doesn't honor the cookie privacy settings of the browser. 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) Do you actually like the fact that those sites do an end-run around the cookie privacy settings by using Flash? I can't find a single rational person that likes the identity-leaking.
You've never addressed the quirkiness that Flash brings to the browser UI. On my Mac, scrolling works differently when my mouse is over a Flash region. Certain keyboard shortcuts cease to work. Text that appears 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.
The engineering choice made for iOS is simplicity. Layering Flash on top of the browser would compromise that simplicity. Click-to-flash semantics would add yet another layer of clutter and obfuscation to the UI.
You've never addressed Adobe's inability to deal competently to secure their software. 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) Besides Flash, 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 Apple enabled Flash in iOS Safari, they would be farming out the correct operation of their iOS browser to a company that has proven to be one of the least competent companies in dealing with malware attacks. Noted security expert Steve Gibson mocks their cluelessness:
"[Adobe:] how is that quarterly update cycle going for you?" (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt)
I have yet to find a single Flash enthusiast who can address those issues. I'm hardly surprised that you can't address them, either.
That is a shortcoming of Steve Jobs' choosing.
Nonsense. They are engineering and design choices. If Apple made bad engineering and design choices, they would never have sold 120M+ of these devices.
If you think they are a "shortcoming": there are simple solutions. Don't buy an iOS device. If you did buy one, sell it. Or maybe you can see if it will blend (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAl28d6tbko).
One thing is certain: Apple will not compromise their iOS browser with Flash, and complaining about that is rather silly.
Even if Flash is on the road to becoming obsolete, that doesn't mean people don't want to be able to access the entire Web in the here and now.
Adobe Flash is on the road to becoming obsolete. Even Adobe acknowledges the fact (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999).
Between the 120M+ iOS devices, the click-to-flash plugins disable Flash downloads on Windows, Mac OS X and Linux machines, and Adobe's new Flash-to-HTML5 conversion tools (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999), the abandonment of Flash will continue to accelerate.
You just don't seem to comprehend that.
You are correct. Flash is a legacy technology, and its day has passed.
You seem to have this deep seated hatred of Flash
There are fundamental failings in both the design and deployment of Flash. I listed three of those earlier in my reply.
The thing that got my attention was when I realized that Flash was maintaining its own set of cookies and that those cookies did not honor the privacy settings of my browser. I then learned about click-to-flash plugins to minimize my exposure to Flash. The shocking thing to me was how much disabling Flash improved the browsing experience: faster page loads, less flashing advertisements, and far less CPU usage.
and I can tell that if Steve had said "I LOVE Flash" instead you would almost undoubtedly be here fighting against HTML5 and for Flash.
You imply that I blindly agree with Apple's (and Jobs's) decisions. That is not the case.
I strongly disagree with Apple's decision to prevent Hypermac from selling external batteries for Mac computers (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1032695). Hypermac makes a quality product, and they are filling a niche that Apple ignores. Magsafe is a wonderful technology, but they should be licensing this tech to third-party vendors. I fondly hope that Apple addresses this deficiency in their strategy and product accessories soon.
If you search, you can find where I commented on this in the public record weeks ago.
Yes, I honestly believe that. You have no vested interest in either one. You're just being Steve's doormat.
Now you know better.
I see no reason why ANYONE should have to convert to HTML5.
Too many laptop users are tired of the CPU loading and battery suck of Flash apps.
Too many users don't like that Flash alters the UI inside of the browsers: altered scrolling behavior, keyboard shortcuts that don't work in Flash, text searches that don't work with text in a Flash app.
Too many privacy advocates are bothered that Flash maintains a separate set of cookies and those cookies do not honor the privacy settings of the browser. Commercial websites are using those Flash cookies to track users. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-209.txt)
Too many security advocates are wary of using Adobe products because of Adobe's poor track record against security attacks.
Even if all those four large concerns were addressed, websites have to deal with the growing number of users that use Flash-blocking plugins. Advertisers that deliver their ads with Flash have no guarantee that users will allow those Flash apps to be downloaded and run on their machines.
Those are the reasons why Flash's viability for delivering web content is in decline. Even if you don't see the reasons, Adobe does (http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2010/10/adobe-demos-flash-to-html5-conversion-tool.html).
dashiel
Jul 21, 11:32 AM
Increased market share can only be a good thing.
Most people I know however, who were using macs at uni or at work, have all switched back to windows in the last year or so and they are not looking back. I suppose marketshare in the UK is not in par with the US. It would be interesting to do a survey of this increased user base and discover the role of the mac platform as it has evolved these days.
I suppose my question is: Has the mac/osx platform changed direction towards its function and purpose? What is a mac with osx good for these days?
A few years back the mac was the platform of choice for the creative class such as designers, photographers, Video editors, etc. Most of these people, with the exception of video editors, have now switched to windows because of the better choice of software and better upgradeability.
the mac platform is still the choice for the creative class. you won't find more than a handful of print designers using windows. adobe/macromedia sales figures show just about 50/50. creative pros don't care one whit about upgradeability. final cut pro is absolutely devastating the film market right now, eating away at the market share of avid solutions. these are all factual and verifiable.
as for your anecdotal evidence of your friends switching back, i'm sure that has happened. i can anecdotally tell you two of my colleagues have switched recently, buying not one, but two laptops each (15" and 17"). thing is my anecdotal evidence is just as useless as yours, all that counts are cold hard numbers and 4.6 is greater than 3.2. clearly mac market share is on the rise.
Most people I know however, who were using macs at uni or at work, have all switched back to windows in the last year or so and they are not looking back. I suppose marketshare in the UK is not in par with the US. It would be interesting to do a survey of this increased user base and discover the role of the mac platform as it has evolved these days.
I suppose my question is: Has the mac/osx platform changed direction towards its function and purpose? What is a mac with osx good for these days?
A few years back the mac was the platform of choice for the creative class such as designers, photographers, Video editors, etc. Most of these people, with the exception of video editors, have now switched to windows because of the better choice of software and better upgradeability.
the mac platform is still the choice for the creative class. you won't find more than a handful of print designers using windows. adobe/macromedia sales figures show just about 50/50. creative pros don't care one whit about upgradeability. final cut pro is absolutely devastating the film market right now, eating away at the market share of avid solutions. these are all factual and verifiable.
as for your anecdotal evidence of your friends switching back, i'm sure that has happened. i can anecdotally tell you two of my colleagues have switched recently, buying not one, but two laptops each (15" and 17"). thing is my anecdotal evidence is just as useless as yours, all that counts are cold hard numbers and 4.6 is greater than 3.2. clearly mac market share is on the rise.
zeemeerman2
Apr 14, 05:14 AM
Well, it is almost time for a new iMac to be released, isn't it? (Or a Mac Mini, Mac Pro, or MacBook for that sake)
iX... At first you could think about the Roman Number 9. But as you all know, in the upper part of X, you can also find the Roman number V. So that makes 14 then. (IX + V)
Now, the iMac shipped in 1998, while now it's 2011. 13 years of difference. Almost fourteen. Coincidence? I think not. Maybe that's a hint from Apple?
Then you got Mac, with a capital M, and a lowercase a and c. In M you can find I, V, and I, which together make (IV + I) 5. In a you can find c and I, which totals in 11 (C+I). Then you got the c, which of course, just translates in 10.
5 + 11 + 10 equals 26. As much as all letters in the Roman (aka Latin) alphabet.
Which leads us to believe that we have not to count the Roman numbers, but just the Roman letters.
M is the 13th letter of the alphabet.
A is the first letter of the alphabet.
C is the 3rd letter of the alphabet.
TOTAL: 17.
Now we all know Apple's marketing. And you know that's a hint from the name in the title: MarketingName. Big words mean more to Apple than big numbers. "This computer is fantastic" is more advertised than "This computer has 8 GB of RAM". So that can conclude that we'll have to substract the Roman numbers from the Roman letters.
26 - 17 = 9. Nine indeed. Got it?
9 was also the number iX, which we started with. This leads us to believe we have to be on the right track.
Now what are those dots in between the words?
Anyone else can further elaborate this? Thanks for your help.
Edit: I forgot the lower case i in iX. I used it as an uppercase letter. So maybe that only counts as 0.5 instead? So that equals 13.5 with the V included. That only gives Apple 6 months to finish the new unknown thing!
iX... At first you could think about the Roman Number 9. But as you all know, in the upper part of X, you can also find the Roman number V. So that makes 14 then. (IX + V)
Now, the iMac shipped in 1998, while now it's 2011. 13 years of difference. Almost fourteen. Coincidence? I think not. Maybe that's a hint from Apple?
Then you got Mac, with a capital M, and a lowercase a and c. In M you can find I, V, and I, which together make (IV + I) 5. In a you can find c and I, which totals in 11 (C+I). Then you got the c, which of course, just translates in 10.
5 + 11 + 10 equals 26. As much as all letters in the Roman (aka Latin) alphabet.
Which leads us to believe that we have not to count the Roman numbers, but just the Roman letters.
M is the 13th letter of the alphabet.
A is the first letter of the alphabet.
C is the 3rd letter of the alphabet.
TOTAL: 17.
Now we all know Apple's marketing. And you know that's a hint from the name in the title: MarketingName. Big words mean more to Apple than big numbers. "This computer is fantastic" is more advertised than "This computer has 8 GB of RAM". So that can conclude that we'll have to substract the Roman numbers from the Roman letters.
26 - 17 = 9. Nine indeed. Got it?
9 was also the number iX, which we started with. This leads us to believe we have to be on the right track.
Now what are those dots in between the words?
Anyone else can further elaborate this? Thanks for your help.
Edit: I forgot the lower case i in iX. I used it as an uppercase letter. So maybe that only counts as 0.5 instead? So that equals 13.5 with the V included. That only gives Apple 6 months to finish the new unknown thing!
RBR2
Apr 11, 06:08 PM
Sucks that there will be no PCIe option for Mac Pro owners. I just bought a new 6-Core system. However, "Light Peak" will be better with full system fiber optic integration driving everything from drives to displays, making for less internal parts for one universal control system (as I understand it).
Perhaps in the 2012 Mac Pro's (this would be hugely beneficial in portables and iMacs as well as they could benefit from less hardware with a streamlined "Light Peak/Thunderbolt" system).
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. In fact, the only thing I keep hearing is "late this year or early next year" which is not likely to build a base within the PC community which, IMO, is necessary for Thunderbolt to avoid becoming the next Firewire...not a complete failure, but not exactly a success either.
The NAB may tell the tale.
Perhaps in the 2012 Mac Pro's (this would be hugely beneficial in portables and iMacs as well as they could benefit from less hardware with a streamlined "Light Peak/Thunderbolt" system).
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. In fact, the only thing I keep hearing is "late this year or early next year" which is not likely to build a base within the PC community which, IMO, is necessary for Thunderbolt to avoid becoming the next Firewire...not a complete failure, but not exactly a success either.
The NAB may tell the tale.
more...
dethmaShine
Apr 22, 05:57 AM
yes I agree the hands in both those pictures look extremely similar.
I am going to have to side with Samsung on this; apple stole their hand.
As far as the phones go? the looks are similar but still different looking.
->
The dates are wrong as the F700 was unveiled after Apple announced the iPhone at MacWorld in 2007
I am going to have to side with Samsung on this; apple stole their hand.
As far as the phones go? the looks are similar but still different looking.
->
The dates are wrong as the F700 was unveiled after Apple announced the iPhone at MacWorld in 2007
Erwin-Br
Apr 26, 01:50 PM
No cloud for me.
Paying 20 bucks a year is not much, but I'm also paying 60 bucks a month for standard Internet access, and 30 bucks a month for my Phone's data+voice plan. To make matters worse Dutch telco's, one by one, are starting to impose data limits on their plans which means that if you go over the limit, they make you pay through the nose.
No, thanks.
Paying 20 bucks a year is not much, but I'm also paying 60 bucks a month for standard Internet access, and 30 bucks a month for my Phone's data+voice plan. To make matters worse Dutch telco's, one by one, are starting to impose data limits on their plans which means that if you go over the limit, they make you pay through the nose.
No, thanks.
more...
puckhead193
Jan 30, 08:51 PM
And here is a picture of the iMacQuarium all set up!
... freaking awesome, if I do say so myself.
too awesome! Have you named your fish?
... freaking awesome, if I do say so myself.
too awesome! Have you named your fish?
chanerz
Sep 12, 09:27 PM
mocha frappe for me please!
more...
MagnusVonMagnum
Nov 11, 10:54 AM
What's with all the developers that won't do Universal Apps?
If you're supporting both platforms anyway, it's actually far less code, and less testing to just do a Universal App. (I know, I've done two of them so far.)
Apple dropped support for PPC in Snow Leopard and so many programs now even require Snow Leopard to run. Such programs will not work in Leopard, let alone as Universal Apps. If you use any Snow Leopard specific features, I figure you cannot get a Universal binary regardless. It's why I think Apple should have waited until Lion to ditch PPC. Developers for OSX tend to prematurely drop support for previous versions of the operating system simply because they cannot be bothered to support it and/or have no way to test it. I think a lot of apps didn't bother with PPC purely due to the testing issue. Some apps need a bit of tweaking to work in PPC some times even with Apple's two for the price of one system.
This is why I said when Apple dropped PPC for a "tweak" upgrade (Snow Leopard) that PPC was pretty much finished despite all the people saying that "Leopard still works". Yes, it still works but most new software does not. You see the same thin on the App store for iOS a lot. Some app updates will suddenly require iOS 4.x and too bad if iTunes isn't flagged properly and it updates it locally since older iPod Touches and iPhones won't be able to use the app at that point.
You don't just lose out on any new operating system features when your hardware isn't supported any longer. You often lose out on new software as well. You rarely see this with Windows. The vast majority of software that works with Vista and Windows7 still works with XP. Even most games still support DirectX 9 as well because so many users still use XP (which is still faster for gaming for the most part). And XP isn't even officially supported by Microsoft anymore. I guess that's the problem with the high turnover rates with OSX. Older versions get dumped into oblivion instead of slowly fading away. Look how fast OS9 disappeared off the face of the earth whereas you could still get quite a bit of software for Win98 a decade later even.
As for Skyfire and flash, it just proves that despite fanboy ravings on here, a lot of people still want to be able to view Flash web sites. Having a crippled Internet experience just plain sucks, especially if it's only to push one man's agenda for a Flash free Internet. Well, it's not going anywhere fast, regardless and Apple should not be allowed to market things like "the whole Internet" for iOS devices when it's not true.
If you're supporting both platforms anyway, it's actually far less code, and less testing to just do a Universal App. (I know, I've done two of them so far.)
Apple dropped support for PPC in Snow Leopard and so many programs now even require Snow Leopard to run. Such programs will not work in Leopard, let alone as Universal Apps. If you use any Snow Leopard specific features, I figure you cannot get a Universal binary regardless. It's why I think Apple should have waited until Lion to ditch PPC. Developers for OSX tend to prematurely drop support for previous versions of the operating system simply because they cannot be bothered to support it and/or have no way to test it. I think a lot of apps didn't bother with PPC purely due to the testing issue. Some apps need a bit of tweaking to work in PPC some times even with Apple's two for the price of one system.
This is why I said when Apple dropped PPC for a "tweak" upgrade (Snow Leopard) that PPC was pretty much finished despite all the people saying that "Leopard still works". Yes, it still works but most new software does not. You see the same thin on the App store for iOS a lot. Some app updates will suddenly require iOS 4.x and too bad if iTunes isn't flagged properly and it updates it locally since older iPod Touches and iPhones won't be able to use the app at that point.
You don't just lose out on any new operating system features when your hardware isn't supported any longer. You often lose out on new software as well. You rarely see this with Windows. The vast majority of software that works with Vista and Windows7 still works with XP. Even most games still support DirectX 9 as well because so many users still use XP (which is still faster for gaming for the most part). And XP isn't even officially supported by Microsoft anymore. I guess that's the problem with the high turnover rates with OSX. Older versions get dumped into oblivion instead of slowly fading away. Look how fast OS9 disappeared off the face of the earth whereas you could still get quite a bit of software for Win98 a decade later even.
As for Skyfire and flash, it just proves that despite fanboy ravings on here, a lot of people still want to be able to view Flash web sites. Having a crippled Internet experience just plain sucks, especially if it's only to push one man's agenda for a Flash free Internet. Well, it's not going anywhere fast, regardless and Apple should not be allowed to market things like "the whole Internet" for iOS devices when it's not true.
Stella
Jul 28, 08:42 AM
Never too late.
Isn't that what people said when Apple released the iPod - its too late... Now look.
It's too late for Microsoft - they are just riding Apple's coattails now, in a desperate attempt to create something that can compete with iTunes+iPod...but thats all it is, a desperate attempt :eek:
Isn't that what people said when Apple released the iPod - its too late... Now look.
It's too late for Microsoft - they are just riding Apple's coattails now, in a desperate attempt to create something that can compete with iTunes+iPod...but thats all it is, a desperate attempt :eek:
more...
junker
Jan 1, 09:53 PM
I hear her underwear screaming for help.
There. Fixed that for you.
heh..
There. Fixed that for you.
heh..
mtkagan
Mar 16, 08:40 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)
4th in line at South Coast Plaza. Anyone in the front of the line at another location want to make a deal - if my store gets them in you can buy my second, and vise versa?
^^ what he said!
4th in line at South Coast Plaza. Anyone in the front of the line at another location want to make a deal - if my store gets them in you can buy my second, and vise versa?
^^ what he said!
more...
Rogue.
May 3, 07:41 AM
UK store now up, i7 still a BTO :p
Smokin AMD Radeon HD 6970M 2GB GDDR5 [+ �80.00] though :D
Smokin AMD Radeon HD 6970M 2GB GDDR5 [+ �80.00] though :D
MrCrowbar
Aug 15, 04:52 PM
have a guest account that doesn't require a login, but gets wiped after they logout.
Niiice! Now that's what I call a guest account.
Niiice! Now that's what I call a guest account.
more...
kingtj
Oct 23, 10:55 AM
From a practical standpoint, I know exactly what you're saying. But it doesn't help fix the problem. In the past, MS has implemented restrictive policies that angered enough users that they were forced to back down on them.
EG. A while back, MS took a stance that it was illegal to use an imaged installation of Windows on your PC if you didn't own a "volume license" or separate retail box license for it. If your PC came bundled with a copy of Windows on it and you blew that away in favor of your pre-made disk imaged version, they tried to say you weren't properly licensed anymore if you didn't own that second license.
This caused so many corporations to suddenly be "illegal" on thousands of PCs that it created a firestorm of protest. After that, you never really heard about the issue again. MS even started addressing the "Ghost" imaging software specifically in their tech. notes.
People who just shrug and say "Who cares? I'll just break the EULA and do things my way." just encourage MS to keep on restricting things. If you aren't the "squeaky wheel", you don't get any "oil".
I could care less what the microsoft's EULA agreement says. If I'm able to install it I could care less if it is illegal. As long as it is only on one computer then I'm doing it. And they wonder why people pirate their software...
EG. A while back, MS took a stance that it was illegal to use an imaged installation of Windows on your PC if you didn't own a "volume license" or separate retail box license for it. If your PC came bundled with a copy of Windows on it and you blew that away in favor of your pre-made disk imaged version, they tried to say you weren't properly licensed anymore if you didn't own that second license.
This caused so many corporations to suddenly be "illegal" on thousands of PCs that it created a firestorm of protest. After that, you never really heard about the issue again. MS even started addressing the "Ghost" imaging software specifically in their tech. notes.
People who just shrug and say "Who cares? I'll just break the EULA and do things my way." just encourage MS to keep on restricting things. If you aren't the "squeaky wheel", you don't get any "oil".
I could care less what the microsoft's EULA agreement says. If I'm able to install it I could care less if it is illegal. As long as it is only on one computer then I'm doing it. And they wonder why people pirate their software...
E.Lizardo
Jun 6, 09:53 AM
sure. apple has no problem giving a refund, as they keep their 30% that the developer now has to pay. that's a cool $300 that apple just ripped off from the developer all to protect their mistake and their idiot customers.
Proof?
Proof?
more...
netdog
Oct 12, 05:00 AM
At $79 a year it will probably be 5 years before the program moves to a commonly useful level where it may have the ability to replace MS Office. The very casual Word Processor user will not have to wait very long, maybe Pages 3 or Pages 4. With the 5 X $79 = $395 we move into the price range of the non-educational price of MS Office. But for the heavy Office user, 5 years may not be long enough.
I write lengthy academic papers, am writing a play and a book which I am pretty far into. So far, I don't miss Word one bit, and that is using Pages 2.
Pages has a lot of features. It just takes some time to learn how to use it.
I write lengthy academic papers, am writing a play and a book which I am pretty far into. So far, I don't miss Word one bit, and that is using Pages 2.
Pages has a lot of features. It just takes some time to learn how to use it.
chrmjenkins
Apr 22, 02:44 PM
Now they are. The problem is it took them a couple of years. They waited until Intel produced mobile chips that "suit" them instead of producing a Mac that could use available quad core mobile chips. And we are not even talking about minor details like Apple never using the most powerful versions of CPUs (for example, there is no MBPs with SandyBridge/2920XM).
Apple has never used extreme edition processors. It's outside the scope of their market (aside from beyond their TDP).
However, that's immaterial to the overall point. You tried to claim that apple skimps on some products, therefore them skimping on LTE because they can makes sense. That's no longer the case, Apple does use mobile quad core processors, so your claim no longer has any basis.
Apple has never used extreme edition processors. It's outside the scope of their market (aside from beyond their TDP).
However, that's immaterial to the overall point. You tried to claim that apple skimps on some products, therefore them skimping on LTE because they can makes sense. That's no longer the case, Apple does use mobile quad core processors, so your claim no longer has any basis.
satcomer
May 2, 02:10 AM
This is not for the faint of heart.
first released of Osama bin Laden dead (http://www.glittarazzi.com/storage/osama_bin_laden_dead-photo.jpg).
first released of Osama bin Laden dead (http://www.glittarazzi.com/storage/osama_bin_laden_dead-photo.jpg).
evil89
Apr 1, 01:56 AM
Ugly...
I don't want an iPad on my Mac, please.
I don't want an iPad on my Mac, please.
Qwest905
Jan 27, 06:53 AM
http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/5308/sonyhtss37001.jpg (http://img163.imageshack.us/i/sonyhtss37001.jpg/)
i bought it on friday and man the sound is amazing=D!!! the only thing missing is that i have to buy a HDMI Switcher for my PS3:) so i can enjoy my blu-ray movies/concert on my 32" TV and it all fitted in my room hehe:P
isn't that the htss370...that should have 3 hdmi inputs and one output...you don't need a switcher
i bought it on friday and man the sound is amazing=D!!! the only thing missing is that i have to buy a HDMI Switcher for my PS3:) so i can enjoy my blu-ray movies/concert on my 32" TV and it all fitted in my room hehe:P
isn't that the htss370...that should have 3 hdmi inputs and one output...you don't need a switcher
jaigo
Oct 24, 08:51 AM
What about those of us that bought MBP's in August? The upgrades weren't in the forcast! Ugh, I really hate it when this happens!
That's why you should have been patient. :)
That's why you should have been patient. :)
MadeTheSwitch
Apr 23, 02:41 AM
Apple has no interest in making different sizes/models of iPhones. If you don't care for that, apple isn't for you. They are a greatest common denominator company.
Perhaps. But it should be noted that at one time Apple didn't have any interest in making different sizes/models of iPods either. Or CDMA phones. Point being, things change.
Perhaps. But it should be noted that at one time Apple didn't have any interest in making different sizes/models of iPods either. Or CDMA phones. Point being, things change.
funwithamar
Apr 14, 05:23 AM
Duh, I can't believe some of the comments there...
Edit: Some here speculate in an iOS + OS X merge, and I guess that *could* happen. That could be compatible with iOS 3.0 and fit that list. Perhaps it's the biggest surprise Apple is holding back for OS X Lion. .
yes yes ....and they bring out a new magic mouse with the accelerometer and gyroscope so it can be used as a remote :D
Edit: Some here speculate in an iOS + OS X merge, and I guess that *could* happen. That could be compatible with iOS 3.0 and fit that list. Perhaps it's the biggest surprise Apple is holding back for OS X Lion. .
yes yes ....and they bring out a new magic mouse with the accelerometer and gyroscope so it can be used as a remote :D
No comments:
Post a Comment