dba7dba
Apr 13, 02:51 PM
If true, it could be absolutely huge. Truly landmark. Imagine if Apple could somehow do the the TV industry what they did to nearly every other industry (segment) they're in?
The possibilities are pretty astounding. This is the Apple of folks. They have the money, drive, talent and momentum to get into any market and shake things up with a very good chance of success, and make the established players look totally flat-footed in the process.
We should let the NUMBERS (or $$$) speak for themselves.
Absolutely not likely to happen. It will happen only if they somehow price the TV at say like $500.
Apple seems to be really enjoying making people buy new iphone/ipad every 1 or 2 years. At $500 or so, it's easier for consumers to swallow. And the consumer knows he/she will spend a lot of time using it.
At $1000 - $2000 (TV with profit margin Apple likes), # of people willing and able to pay that every 1 - 2 years goes down alot.
And let's not forget Apple won't enter a market if they don't get to have a huge profit margin.
The possibilities are pretty astounding. This is the Apple of folks. They have the money, drive, talent and momentum to get into any market and shake things up with a very good chance of success, and make the established players look totally flat-footed in the process.
We should let the NUMBERS (or $$$) speak for themselves.
Absolutely not likely to happen. It will happen only if they somehow price the TV at say like $500.
Apple seems to be really enjoying making people buy new iphone/ipad every 1 or 2 years. At $500 or so, it's easier for consumers to swallow. And the consumer knows he/she will spend a lot of time using it.
At $1000 - $2000 (TV with profit margin Apple likes), # of people willing and able to pay that every 1 - 2 years goes down alot.
And let's not forget Apple won't enter a market if they don't get to have a huge profit margin.
twoodcc
Oct 24, 10:02 PM
alright! and i am going to give the bigadv units another shot. but it's not looking good right now - just under 43 min for my first 2 frames. not sure what's going on. i've gotta install some updates on ubuntu and see if that helps
well nevermind. i got it around 36 mins now for each frame. i had been messing with the bios earlier, and forgot to put it back how i had it (overclocked)
well nevermind. i got it around 36 mins now for each frame. i had been messing with the bios earlier, and forgot to put it back how i had it (overclocked)
ScottInTheOC
Mar 16, 02:32 PM
Is this at the spectrum?
Yes this was at Irvine Spectrum. The Apple guy said to try again tomorrow.
Has anyone heard from Mission Viejo??
Yes this was at Irvine Spectrum. The Apple guy said to try again tomorrow.
Has anyone heard from Mission Viejo??
MacinDoc
Apr 13, 06:25 PM
No, nay, never... nay, never, no more! (sung with an Irish lilt). TV = mass-produced low-margin market that is focused primarily on price and specs. Exactly the kind of market that Apple avoids like the plague.
more...
rmhop81
Apr 26, 12:36 PM
You need the local drive anyway. Are you saying you will delete all your songs from your local drive once you put them in the cloud? Now that seems impractical.
so instead you're going to store them all on multiple machines? what do you think the cloud is for? lol
so instead you're going to store them all on multiple machines? what do you think the cloud is for? lol
icrew
Oct 24, 07:50 AM
For me, the biggest news is the 3GB of RAM and 200GB of disk that's available now--frankly the 2GB in my MBP-CD (Core Duo--how are we going to distinguish them now?) is a bit anemic, especially for running Parallels and PowerPC apps simultaneously.
(At least I'll finally get my boss to order one, so I can play with one of the new ones....)
Edit: Can't seem to add the new 15 to my shopping cart from the edu (College/University Proposal) store--just get:
"Your session has timed out after a period of inactivity. Please return to the Store Menu to continue shopping." I can add other items to the cart from that store, so it's just something that's screwed up. Sigh. Guess I should just go back to bed and wait awhile!
Ian
(At least I'll finally get my boss to order one, so I can play with one of the new ones....)
Edit: Can't seem to add the new 15 to my shopping cart from the edu (College/University Proposal) store--just get:
"Your session has timed out after a period of inactivity. Please return to the Store Menu to continue shopping." I can add other items to the cart from that store, so it's just something that's screwed up. Sigh. Guess I should just go back to bed and wait awhile!
Ian
more...
samcraig
Apr 29, 04:56 PM
I'm willing to bet you'll see Amazon's share price take a jump again as the media starts to say that Amazon is going to steal iTunes market share. Wall Street just loves market share. I think they just enjoy the controversy. They'll connect Android's growth rate with lowered mp3 costs and figure through some immediate impact that Amazon will steal away iPhone and iTunes customers away in the long run and pull them to the Android platform.
I say that it's not wise to just lower prices if you're going to lose money on every sale. I still believe Wall Street will let Amazon get away with it. I'll stick with Apple's pricing model since I'm sure they know how to balance their books the best. Since the record companies approved of Apple's tiered pricing model, I think Amazon might be sticking its neck out again if this new pricing model isn't approved by the record companies.
I wonder what your response would have been if Apple had reduced their pricing model and Amazon had the higher one....
I'm guessing you'd praise Apple for the strategy. Maybe I'm wrong. But I am sure plenty here would.
I say that it's not wise to just lower prices if you're going to lose money on every sale. I still believe Wall Street will let Amazon get away with it. I'll stick with Apple's pricing model since I'm sure they know how to balance their books the best. Since the record companies approved of Apple's tiered pricing model, I think Amazon might be sticking its neck out again if this new pricing model isn't approved by the record companies.
I wonder what your response would have been if Apple had reduced their pricing model and Amazon had the higher one....
I'm guessing you'd praise Apple for the strategy. Maybe I'm wrong. But I am sure plenty here would.
redbeard331
May 4, 02:20 AM
Strange that Apple would potentially lose lots of customers with no new iPhone this summer..
I was looking forward to another crazy all nighter at the mall a couple thousand other nuts, might not be able to do it in the fall.. What a bummer..
Are they trying to steer people into Android phones???
I was looking forward to another crazy all nighter at the mall a couple thousand other nuts, might not be able to do it in the fall.. What a bummer..
Are they trying to steer people into Android phones???
more...
mkjj
Jul 25, 09:16 AM
Your kidding?
http://homepage.mac.com/markjjohnson/.cv/markjjohnson/Sites/.Pictures/Collection/AdjKey.jpg-thumb_140_105.jpg
May have been $250! released in 1992, earliest UK price I can find (old MacFormat 1996) it was still �149 GBP and that was 4 years after release
http://homepage.mac.com/markjjohnson/.cv/markjjohnson/Sites/.Pictures/Collection/AdjKey.jpg-thumb_140_105.jpg
May have been $250! released in 1992, earliest UK price I can find (old MacFormat 1996) it was still �149 GBP and that was 4 years after release
bushido
Apr 24, 09:53 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; de-de) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
oops delete please ^^ stupid iphone
oops delete please ^^ stupid iphone
more...
Don Kosak
May 3, 07:54 AM
Update looks great, especially the new graphic card options.
I am disappointed that the SSD prices are the same as last year. US$600 for a 256GB SSD option. I was hoping for a big price reduction. (or at least a little price reduction...)
I am disappointed that the SSD prices are the same as last year. US$600 for a 256GB SSD option. I was hoping for a big price reduction. (or at least a little price reduction...)
plinden
Jul 24, 02:18 PM
On Anandtech (http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=3475)
Apple has submitted a filing with the FCC for the Bluetooth version of its single-button right-clickable mouse, the Mighty Mouse. The new mouse will be exactly the same as the current Mighty Mouse except for its wireless feature. The mouse comes with a single button that does both left-click and right-click duties. One omni-directional pointing ball in the middle allows you to scroll in any direction.
The new Mighty Mouse uses two standard AA batteries and will be compatible with OS X 10.4.6 and later. Some users reported that the Mighty Mouse had some issues with right clicking, and often times the single fat button would click both sides of the mouse. It is unclear whether or not this has been addressed.
No release date is set for the new Bluetooth Mighty Mouse -- currently codenamed M6, but judging from the FCC filing, the new mouse should arrive soon.
Apple has submitted a filing with the FCC for the Bluetooth version of its single-button right-clickable mouse, the Mighty Mouse. The new mouse will be exactly the same as the current Mighty Mouse except for its wireless feature. The mouse comes with a single button that does both left-click and right-click duties. One omni-directional pointing ball in the middle allows you to scroll in any direction.
The new Mighty Mouse uses two standard AA batteries and will be compatible with OS X 10.4.6 and later. Some users reported that the Mighty Mouse had some issues with right clicking, and often times the single fat button would click both sides of the mouse. It is unclear whether or not this has been addressed.
No release date is set for the new Bluetooth Mighty Mouse -- currently codenamed M6, but judging from the FCC filing, the new mouse should arrive soon.
more...
roar08
Mar 31, 10:25 AM
It'll be great if this flows into iOS too.
Whistleway
Oct 24, 07:52 AM
Solid upgrade. Kudos Apple.
more...
Arran
Dec 30, 10:25 AM
She would've either vomited or exploded.
She obviously declined the "waffer theen meent".
Bravo! Well played Madame :)
...Seriously though; "Daily Mail" and "Sunday Mirror"... Says everything you need to know!
Yes it does.
She obviously declined the "waffer theen meent".
Bravo! Well played Madame :)
...Seriously though; "Daily Mail" and "Sunday Mirror"... Says everything you need to know!
Yes it does.
dXTC
Jan 1, 10:02 PM
Why concede? I think we are examining obesity pretty well as a group. Furthermore, the current level of obesity is really everyone's problem, as the level affects our society as a whole.
This lady in question though blows my mind as the article has framed it to appear that her goal is to gain weight. Perhaps the article misinterpreted what she meant.
I would agree that we have steered this conversation away from the "eeeewww she's a horrid, disgusting pig" comments to more abstract concepts. Kudos.
The article, like most articles about this particular woman, was quite sensationalized. Then again, the reporter didn't misinterpret by much, because this woman played along with it for a while (and has been in a feeder/feedee relationship for some time). Afterward, in an attempt at "damage control", she said that the thousand-pound thing was more of a fantasy than an attainable goal, but by then, the exaggerated perceptions about her had spread too far.
She hasn't been in the news in the past couple of months, however, so maybe she and her family can regain some level of normalcy.
There is another thing KnightWRX is right about in his last post: A good percentage of supersize people eat for reasons other than the love of food. They often get the signal that they're full, but ignore it. Food addiction does exist, and can be as difficult to manage as alcoholism or drug addiction.
This lady in question though blows my mind as the article has framed it to appear that her goal is to gain weight. Perhaps the article misinterpreted what she meant.
I would agree that we have steered this conversation away from the "eeeewww she's a horrid, disgusting pig" comments to more abstract concepts. Kudos.
The article, like most articles about this particular woman, was quite sensationalized. Then again, the reporter didn't misinterpret by much, because this woman played along with it for a while (and has been in a feeder/feedee relationship for some time). Afterward, in an attempt at "damage control", she said that the thousand-pound thing was more of a fantasy than an attainable goal, but by then, the exaggerated perceptions about her had spread too far.
She hasn't been in the news in the past couple of months, however, so maybe she and her family can regain some level of normalcy.
There is another thing KnightWRX is right about in his last post: A good percentage of supersize people eat for reasons other than the love of food. They often get the signal that they're full, but ignore it. Food addiction does exist, and can be as difficult to manage as alcoholism or drug addiction.
more...
kalsta
Apr 14, 12:12 PM
http://i1227.photobucket.com/albums/ee430/kalsta1/ixMacMarketingName-promo.jpg
lyngo
May 3, 07:35 AM
Wow... Those are looking hot!
KnightWRX
Dec 30, 10:43 PM
Under normal circumstances, you're more or less right.
No, I'm 100% right. Weight control is about calories. End of story. Calories in < Calories out and you lose weight. Opposite and you gain weight. There's no more or less here, that is the very basic premise. You want to discuss specifics that affect calories in/calories out, but that's flawed. Teach people the base first, and let them balance themselves out. You can very easily test your metabolic rate.
However, many supersize people have participated in crash diets, drugs and other questionable regimens over the years in search of quick-fix thinness. Doing so can, after a while, sabotage the body's normal metabolic rate and endocrine output, making it much harder for these people to find the balance in their caloric equation without depriving themselves of needed micronutrients (vitamins, minerals).
So you're saying these people have abnormally low "Calories out". It still comes down to that very simple equation. These people first have to fix their calories out, get their metabolism back straight, then they can fix their calories in.
It is that easy to lose weight. People don't know this very simple and basic concept, they think "Fat/Sugar" has to do with weight, which is completely false. "Low Saturated Fat!" on a box of cookies means squat if the cookies are 170 calories for 3 vs 180 calories for 3 of the same cookies with normal saturated fat. You still can't eat the whole box in one sitting and think "hey, it's low fat, I can't gain weight from this".
You'd be surprised how many people think this way.
I don't have a dog in this fight, but the question that runs through my mind is: if it's so easy, why do people struggle with it? Why are there entire industries built around people that struggle with losing weight on their own?
People struggle because like someone pointed out, they lack willpower and I'll add that they lack education. Calorie control is the only way to lose weight. There's seriously no other way, since weight is based off of calories and calories alone. To lose weight, you need a calorie deficiency. To be more precise, 3500 calories = 1 lbs, each way. So you need to create a calorie deficiency of 3500 calories before you lose 1 lbs. My metabolic rate is around 1740, that's what I burn each day without lifting a finger. Add in my normal routine, and I'm around the magic 2000 calorie diet. Let's not add in my gym routine. So to lose 1 lbs in 7 days, I need to go on a 1500 calorie diet per day. That's going to give me a deficiency of 500 per day, times 7 days, 1 lbs lost.
There's entire industries because they profit from it. Some people like to buy "instant" solutions. 1 lbs in 7 days ? Bah humbug, too long, I have 100 to lose! There's no instant solutions to weight loss, quite the contrary, the entire weight loss industry makes money by keeping people fat and coming back for miracle cures. Their proposed plans of "1 shake/bar for breakfeast, same for lunch and a balanced diner" is awful. First, it should be the opposite, a good breakfeast and then their bars/shakes for lunch and diner. Breakfeast is where you get your day's energy. Second, that's not calorie control since it doesn't explain that it is trying to create a calorie deficit. So people just still overeat, they compensate the calories they didn't eat at breakfeast/lunch with a huge "balanced" diner.
I'm going to just assume you are young and have time on your hands. Because when I was young and had time staying trim was quite easy., Let's talk when you're in your 30's and are a busy professional :rolleyes:
I'm 32, work 35 hours per week in IT (sitting down on my ass), am on call with tons of pages coming in once every 2 weeks. I have a girlfriend, a mortgage and a dog.
Again, staying trim has nothing to do with having time or being busy or not. If you spend less calories, eat less calories. Balance your calories in to your calories out and you'll stay trim. Sure it means doing a bit more research into what you're eating, but that's not impossible. It also means listening to your body. Feeling "stuffed" means you overate. You should never feel full or stuffed. A donut is not faster to mow down than an Apple. It's not more filling either. It's tons more calories though.
You made an assumption about me and you were wrong. You should look at yourself and what you are or aren't doing that is making you fat, not make up excuses.
look. I'm not trying to make excuses. I'm not THAT out of shape. I do bikram yoga 4 times per week and walk a lot. I just can't be as extensive about it as I was in my youthful years. I'm very healthy but I do need to drop 20ish lbs. per doctors orders. I've completely cut out any sugar drinks other than water and a few organic smoothies and an occaional glass of wine here and there. But at my age and with my busy schedule it's just not as easy as it was when I was 25. Not an excuse, just a simple fact.
But again, it's just because you don't understand your caloric need for a day and you either overeat or eat just the right amount to maintain your weight. You don't even need to exercise to create a calorie deficiency. I think you're the perfect example of what I'm talking about, you don't understand the very basic concept, which has nothing to do with time spent, but rather food ingested.
People need to get it out of their heads that it is about exercise. It's 10% working out, 90% food. Get your nutrition right and you won't need to exercise a day in your life. If you want to get fit however, make sure to balance your nutrition around your added caloric need to not drop weight too fast or at all if your goal is maintaining.
No, I'm 100% right. Weight control is about calories. End of story. Calories in < Calories out and you lose weight. Opposite and you gain weight. There's no more or less here, that is the very basic premise. You want to discuss specifics that affect calories in/calories out, but that's flawed. Teach people the base first, and let them balance themselves out. You can very easily test your metabolic rate.
However, many supersize people have participated in crash diets, drugs and other questionable regimens over the years in search of quick-fix thinness. Doing so can, after a while, sabotage the body's normal metabolic rate and endocrine output, making it much harder for these people to find the balance in their caloric equation without depriving themselves of needed micronutrients (vitamins, minerals).
So you're saying these people have abnormally low "Calories out". It still comes down to that very simple equation. These people first have to fix their calories out, get their metabolism back straight, then they can fix their calories in.
It is that easy to lose weight. People don't know this very simple and basic concept, they think "Fat/Sugar" has to do with weight, which is completely false. "Low Saturated Fat!" on a box of cookies means squat if the cookies are 170 calories for 3 vs 180 calories for 3 of the same cookies with normal saturated fat. You still can't eat the whole box in one sitting and think "hey, it's low fat, I can't gain weight from this".
You'd be surprised how many people think this way.
I don't have a dog in this fight, but the question that runs through my mind is: if it's so easy, why do people struggle with it? Why are there entire industries built around people that struggle with losing weight on their own?
People struggle because like someone pointed out, they lack willpower and I'll add that they lack education. Calorie control is the only way to lose weight. There's seriously no other way, since weight is based off of calories and calories alone. To lose weight, you need a calorie deficiency. To be more precise, 3500 calories = 1 lbs, each way. So you need to create a calorie deficiency of 3500 calories before you lose 1 lbs. My metabolic rate is around 1740, that's what I burn each day without lifting a finger. Add in my normal routine, and I'm around the magic 2000 calorie diet. Let's not add in my gym routine. So to lose 1 lbs in 7 days, I need to go on a 1500 calorie diet per day. That's going to give me a deficiency of 500 per day, times 7 days, 1 lbs lost.
There's entire industries because they profit from it. Some people like to buy "instant" solutions. 1 lbs in 7 days ? Bah humbug, too long, I have 100 to lose! There's no instant solutions to weight loss, quite the contrary, the entire weight loss industry makes money by keeping people fat and coming back for miracle cures. Their proposed plans of "1 shake/bar for breakfeast, same for lunch and a balanced diner" is awful. First, it should be the opposite, a good breakfeast and then their bars/shakes for lunch and diner. Breakfeast is where you get your day's energy. Second, that's not calorie control since it doesn't explain that it is trying to create a calorie deficit. So people just still overeat, they compensate the calories they didn't eat at breakfeast/lunch with a huge "balanced" diner.
I'm going to just assume you are young and have time on your hands. Because when I was young and had time staying trim was quite easy., Let's talk when you're in your 30's and are a busy professional :rolleyes:
I'm 32, work 35 hours per week in IT (sitting down on my ass), am on call with tons of pages coming in once every 2 weeks. I have a girlfriend, a mortgage and a dog.
Again, staying trim has nothing to do with having time or being busy or not. If you spend less calories, eat less calories. Balance your calories in to your calories out and you'll stay trim. Sure it means doing a bit more research into what you're eating, but that's not impossible. It also means listening to your body. Feeling "stuffed" means you overate. You should never feel full or stuffed. A donut is not faster to mow down than an Apple. It's not more filling either. It's tons more calories though.
You made an assumption about me and you were wrong. You should look at yourself and what you are or aren't doing that is making you fat, not make up excuses.
look. I'm not trying to make excuses. I'm not THAT out of shape. I do bikram yoga 4 times per week and walk a lot. I just can't be as extensive about it as I was in my youthful years. I'm very healthy but I do need to drop 20ish lbs. per doctors orders. I've completely cut out any sugar drinks other than water and a few organic smoothies and an occaional glass of wine here and there. But at my age and with my busy schedule it's just not as easy as it was when I was 25. Not an excuse, just a simple fact.
But again, it's just because you don't understand your caloric need for a day and you either overeat or eat just the right amount to maintain your weight. You don't even need to exercise to create a calorie deficiency. I think you're the perfect example of what I'm talking about, you don't understand the very basic concept, which has nothing to do with time spent, but rather food ingested.
People need to get it out of their heads that it is about exercise. It's 10% working out, 90% food. Get your nutrition right and you won't need to exercise a day in your life. If you want to get fit however, make sure to balance your nutrition around your added caloric need to not drop weight too fast or at all if your goal is maintaining.
Hastings101
Mar 31, 10:33 AM
Like the guy above, I want the ability to change the color of windows or something. The grey os x theme is really boring.
valdore
Jan 25, 06:45 PM
Apple's stock (APPL in NYSE) has plummeted $68 in the last 30 days (from $198 to $130 or 35%) does anyone know what has caused this? Curious...
-Hart
The ticker is AAPL, and it's traded on Nasdaq, not NYSE.
-Hart
The ticker is AAPL, and it's traded on Nasdaq, not NYSE.
milbournosphere
Apr 28, 05:09 PM
This is one of those threads that enforces the Apple fanboi stereotype. It's 1mm. That's it. Steve Jobs is not out to kill your children anymore than he is to fleece you on your white iPhone purchase, and the typical person won't even notice anyway. Can we all move along now?
kainjow
Nov 3, 12:08 PM
Fired up my copy of Knoppix 5 (don't ask). This thing is FAST. Makes Parallels look so slow, doesn't eat up as much memory. Issues so far is the 2-finger scrolling is off a little bit, and the trackpad right clicking is off a little bit. These are only preliminary results, I'll go more indepth later on. So take these results with a grain of salt, for now.
Loaded up 2 Folding@Home clients up to really burn this baby in.
From the screenshots alone, it looks like a Cocoa app, which pretty much guarantees it'll be faster because it won't have the extra Qt bloated code in it ;)
Loaded up 2 Folding@Home clients up to really burn this baby in.
From the screenshots alone, it looks like a Cocoa app, which pretty much guarantees it'll be faster because it won't have the extra Qt bloated code in it ;)
renewed
Sep 15, 03:13 PM
And correct terms, too (myosin/actin)!
That journal looks crazy. Wish it came with the Xbox 360 Bundle.
That journal looks crazy. Wish it came with the Xbox 360 Bundle.
No comments:
Post a Comment