iOS v Android
May 3, 02:04 PM
Why is it that Google always touts how open is so good, then they realize that, oh, guess we should tighten things up a bit, maybe being too open is not such a good thing.
this has nothing to do with google or openess. it is the carriers restricting access to the apps. This is the carriers and their policies. They see the apps as a threat to the plans they sell so they blocked them
this has nothing to do with google or openess. it is the carriers restricting access to the apps. This is the carriers and their policies. They see the apps as a threat to the plans they sell so they blocked them
tvguru
Sep 12, 03:15 AM
no, I wouldn't prefer osx media player, i'm not saying that I would prefer anything different, imedia would make more sense, but there's no way apple would change the name of there most well known software.
I figured you didn't I was just kidding. :o I do agree that if they continue to incorporate more into iTunes it won't have that simple iLife feel. Where you just grab a Mac for the first time and there's no thinking involved on what goes where. I also agree that the name is too significant at this stage for them to change it, a lot of average computer users would be confused the next time they go to upgrade and use the new named version. I'm sure they've thought of something for a full movie download service, but who knows?
I figured you didn't I was just kidding. :o I do agree that if they continue to incorporate more into iTunes it won't have that simple iLife feel. Where you just grab a Mac for the first time and there's no thinking involved on what goes where. I also agree that the name is too significant at this stage for them to change it, a lot of average computer users would be confused the next time they go to upgrade and use the new named version. I'm sure they've thought of something for a full movie download service, but who knows?
micahR
Nov 17, 05:54 AM
This my first Call of Duty game and I am loving it.
I like the campaign for being over the top and lots of fun. I like the multiplayer. Dead Ops Arcade is fantastic. And zombies is a lot of fun. This game was worth my money.
I like the campaign for being over the top and lots of fun. I like the multiplayer. Dead Ops Arcade is fantastic. And zombies is a lot of fun. This game was worth my money.
Schizoid
Mar 24, 06:53 PM
Happy Birthday NeXTSTEP!!! ;)
All of this begs the question... what's next for OS X?
I'm guessing they'll never move away from UNIX as the core OS... too late in the game now, but what are the alternatives?
I'm hoping they'll keep plugging at technologies like Open CL, GCD etc. to make Macs even faster...
All of this begs the question... what's next for OS X?
I'm guessing they'll never move away from UNIX as the core OS... too late in the game now, but what are the alternatives?
I'm hoping they'll keep plugging at technologies like Open CL, GCD etc. to make Macs even faster...
more...
AtHomeBoy_2000
Sep 28, 01:24 PM
Thats not apart of what a home should be. Homes are for eating, sleeping, loving, and relaxing. A screening room is for... Well, none of those.
I 100% agree
I 100% agree
NebulaClash
May 4, 08:46 AM
That one thing that I don't see is Google sponsored Android commercials... they are not promoting their own product like MS did with Windows and are leaving each hardware manufacturer to make up their own image. All of this gives the average consumer a confusing, scattered message of the Android OS.
That's a good point. We really don't see many ads from Google in general.
This is speculation, but I remember those stories last summer about how Android is a temporary thing for Google but Chrome is their future. This gets shot down hard any time it gets mentioned around here, but I can certainly see this as a possibility. One thing Google is famous for is starting something only to abandon it once they decide to focus in other areas. And Chrome is at the heart of their corporate mission -- getting people to stay online in the cloud where they can be monetized. Android also gets the ad revenue, so it might indeed stick around for practical reasons, but the app model is the very model Google hates for it gets people offline and perhaps using some service other than what Google provides. With Chrome, Google would have full control. With Android it's a free-for-all.
So perhaps this is why Google doesn't bother advertising Android that much. It's nice to have, but it's not considered the future at Google.
That's a good point. We really don't see many ads from Google in general.
This is speculation, but I remember those stories last summer about how Android is a temporary thing for Google but Chrome is their future. This gets shot down hard any time it gets mentioned around here, but I can certainly see this as a possibility. One thing Google is famous for is starting something only to abandon it once they decide to focus in other areas. And Chrome is at the heart of their corporate mission -- getting people to stay online in the cloud where they can be monetized. Android also gets the ad revenue, so it might indeed stick around for practical reasons, but the app model is the very model Google hates for it gets people offline and perhaps using some service other than what Google provides. With Chrome, Google would have full control. With Android it's a free-for-all.
So perhaps this is why Google doesn't bother advertising Android that much. It's nice to have, but it's not considered the future at Google.
more...
bigmc6000
Oct 6, 10:21 AM
Except Verizon does that too!!!!
Wait, you mean that grass on the other side isn't actually greener it's just painted green?!?!?! ;)
Wait, you mean that grass on the other side isn't actually greener it's just painted green?!?!?! ;)
.jpg "The Fame Monster")
jamesi
Nov 20, 02:15 AM
Here we go folks.
Just to put everybody's mind at ease. These are the guys who predicted the arrival of a G5 iBook in early 2005.
They have never, ever been right.
ditto, why would apple switch to another chip when they are with the most reliable and solid choice at the moment
Just to put everybody's mind at ease. These are the guys who predicted the arrival of a G5 iBook in early 2005.
They have never, ever been right.
ditto, why would apple switch to another chip when they are with the most reliable and solid choice at the moment
more...
peharri
Oct 3, 03:18 PM
...I'd like The Steve to walk on stage and announce that they absolutely will not release certain products, so the ones that keep coming up as rumours over and over again that stand no chance of ever seeing the light of day (Apple phone, I'm looking at you) stop getting taken seriously, and the rumour sites that have promoted the idea finally get egg on their faces.
That's the thing at the moment. Specific rumours along the lines of "iPod 100G at WWDC!" are easily verifiable and rumour sites that make crap up will get taken to task for it. But pretty much anyone can make up vague rumours about non-existant products as long as they avoid giving a precise timeline for it.
And some of those products are compelling, as the five year old iPhone rumour (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2001/04/20010415210047.shtml) demonstrates.
This article (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2002/08/20020818203655.shtml) is even better. It's a mere four years old, but the wording is such that if there was a glitch in MacRumor's software, and the article reappeared as if it was posted today, it would look completely at home, right down to the "OMG! Latest version of Mac OS X has hidden phone related strings!"
That's the thing at the moment. Specific rumours along the lines of "iPod 100G at WWDC!" are easily verifiable and rumour sites that make crap up will get taken to task for it. But pretty much anyone can make up vague rumours about non-existant products as long as they avoid giving a precise timeline for it.
And some of those products are compelling, as the five year old iPhone rumour (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2001/04/20010415210047.shtml) demonstrates.
This article (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2002/08/20020818203655.shtml) is even better. It's a mere four years old, but the wording is such that if there was a glitch in MacRumor's software, and the article reappeared as if it was posted today, it would look completely at home, right down to the "OMG! Latest version of Mac OS X has hidden phone related strings!"
Rooivalk
Jul 24, 02:28 PM
http://www.deadzune.com/ :)
more...
Eraserhead
Apr 16, 04:28 PM
It's people who promote homosexuality through media, education, culture, and government that people should be afraid of.
And they are?
Last time I checked, it didn't take material wealth to have good character or to be exposed to it.
Of course not, but generally it does require being middle class. You can be a successful plumber or builder and a good role model. But if you are poor and out of work, or you have a low skilled job - such as working at McDonalds - you aren't likely to be a good role model.
And they are?
Last time I checked, it didn't take material wealth to have good character or to be exposed to it.
Of course not, but generally it does require being middle class. You can be a successful plumber or builder and a good role model. But if you are poor and out of work, or you have a low skilled job - such as working at McDonalds - you aren't likely to be a good role model.
Compile 'em all
Apr 13, 03:04 PM
- Auto save
Hmmm....ok...how is this a big deal again?
.
I stopped reading here.
Hmmm....ok...how is this a big deal again?
.
I stopped reading here.
more...
OceanView
Apr 15, 05:42 PM
Can't tell if it's real or fake but the meta data showing CS4 is a bit of an issue.
But I would love it if it was made from Aluminum.
But I would love it if it was made from Aluminum.
ctdonath
Oct 1, 08:59 AM
Local people and conservation societies defended the building as a unique witness of the region's architectural development. It's not a particularly pretty building but it's certainly one with some history around it. ... But leaving the building to the elements with no maintenance is in my opinion wrong, immoral and a disregard of what property ownership should be about. ... If Jobs wanted a modern building ... then he should have got his rich ass moved to another large plot and built his modern glassbox there, after he sold Jackling House to somebody who wanted to live in that and respect local conservationist's and planning authorities' wishes.
I appreciate the sentiment. Anything which has outlived its owner[s] should be given some consideration & deference for historical value. One should treat antiques with respect the spirit of its creation and prior ownership, not just abusing/mangling/destroying it out of a sense of "it's mine so I can do what I want with it." Problem is: where to draw the line, and drawing the line is the prerogative of the current owner.
Are the locals & conservators doing so out of genuine concern for the Jackling House? Is it in fact a worthy part of history, or a notable example? or are they closer to naysaying for the self-serving benefits thereof (striving for relevance, trying to keep a billionaire off the street, whatever)? I'm guessing somewhere in the middle: yeah, a mansion of a distinct style is worth consideration for preservation, and those insisting thereon need something to insist thereon lest their relevance evaporate.
Leaving it to rot shows poor character, either by not caring for what one owns (disrespectful of one's own efforts and possessions) or as a tactic against busybodies (a nasty you-can't-make-me tone). It's his, it should at least be in nice enough shape to have lunch or spend a mundane night there. FWIW, I've owned a remote home, so appreciate the annoyance of long-distance maintenance.
Comes down to the fact that it's located in a high-price-tag area, and the value of the land alone exceeds the building's historical value. We don't know if anyone would have paid the millions to live there, and can be sure nobody would have paid the millions to preserve it for its own sake. The only reason AFAIK anybody is taking an interest in it (ex.: we're talking about it here) is that Steve ***** Jobs is about to destroy it. That a tiny number of people may have genuine interest in preserving either Spanish Revival or Jackling artifacts IMHO just does not give enough weight to overrule the house's owner. If they can't come up with enough of their own money (NOT coerced taxpayer-confiscated funds) to buy it outright or at least relocate it, and there isn't any other broad compelling reason (we're talking Jackling here, not Tesla, and Spanish Revival, not F.L.Wright), then fire up the bulldozers. Fact is, there just isn't that much desirable acreage in that region suitable for a billionaire's estate; "go somewhere else" holds little traction when proximity to Apple's campus is vital and there isn't much else suitable.
As I start to peek "over the hill", my perspective of preserving works is changing. Much has sentimental value, but little warrants outright indefinite preservation. Jackling was one man, long gone; time for his spiritual successor in business success and industrial influence to take his place and leave a new mark.
I appreciate the sentiment. Anything which has outlived its owner[s] should be given some consideration & deference for historical value. One should treat antiques with respect the spirit of its creation and prior ownership, not just abusing/mangling/destroying it out of a sense of "it's mine so I can do what I want with it." Problem is: where to draw the line, and drawing the line is the prerogative of the current owner.
Are the locals & conservators doing so out of genuine concern for the Jackling House? Is it in fact a worthy part of history, or a notable example? or are they closer to naysaying for the self-serving benefits thereof (striving for relevance, trying to keep a billionaire off the street, whatever)? I'm guessing somewhere in the middle: yeah, a mansion of a distinct style is worth consideration for preservation, and those insisting thereon need something to insist thereon lest their relevance evaporate.
Leaving it to rot shows poor character, either by not caring for what one owns (disrespectful of one's own efforts and possessions) or as a tactic against busybodies (a nasty you-can't-make-me tone). It's his, it should at least be in nice enough shape to have lunch or spend a mundane night there. FWIW, I've owned a remote home, so appreciate the annoyance of long-distance maintenance.
Comes down to the fact that it's located in a high-price-tag area, and the value of the land alone exceeds the building's historical value. We don't know if anyone would have paid the millions to live there, and can be sure nobody would have paid the millions to preserve it for its own sake. The only reason AFAIK anybody is taking an interest in it (ex.: we're talking about it here) is that Steve ***** Jobs is about to destroy it. That a tiny number of people may have genuine interest in preserving either Spanish Revival or Jackling artifacts IMHO just does not give enough weight to overrule the house's owner. If they can't come up with enough of their own money (NOT coerced taxpayer-confiscated funds) to buy it outright or at least relocate it, and there isn't any other broad compelling reason (we're talking Jackling here, not Tesla, and Spanish Revival, not F.L.Wright), then fire up the bulldozers. Fact is, there just isn't that much desirable acreage in that region suitable for a billionaire's estate; "go somewhere else" holds little traction when proximity to Apple's campus is vital and there isn't much else suitable.
As I start to peek "over the hill", my perspective of preserving works is changing. Much has sentimental value, but little warrants outright indefinite preservation. Jackling was one man, long gone; time for his spiritual successor in business success and industrial influence to take his place and leave a new mark.
more...
kalsta
Apr 30, 12:15 PM
I don't get why everybody hates this UI change - I personally think it looks a lot better and people will not get confused:).
Do you mean you like the change, or the reverse of the change?
You only have to look at the second screen shot to see why the slider was potentially confusing�
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/04/29/162642-lion_subpane_slider_old_500.jpg
When there are only two options, the inactive option looks a lot like a depressed button.
Apple's always fiddling with this. You have to wonder why they didn't just stick with the old tabbed interface, which is arguably the most instantly recognisable way of switching window views. I guess there's a bit more flexibility in buttons, in terms of their placement� or maybe they're just trying to think different.
Do you mean you like the change, or the reverse of the change?
You only have to look at the second screen shot to see why the slider was potentially confusing�
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/04/29/162642-lion_subpane_slider_old_500.jpg
When there are only two options, the inactive option looks a lot like a depressed button.
Apple's always fiddling with this. You have to wonder why they didn't just stick with the old tabbed interface, which is arguably the most instantly recognisable way of switching window views. I guess there's a bit more flexibility in buttons, in terms of their placement� or maybe they're just trying to think different.
pmz
Apr 16, 10:07 AM
A quick read through this thread is proof of why I normally don't bother reading or posting here.
Almost everyone has posted that they feel the next iPhone could look something like this...
...which is completely ridiculous based on logic and common sense. But it has been my experience that Macrumors forums and "logic" and "common sense" cannot exist in the same place at the same time.
Memory also seems to be a problem around here. For example, Apple's breakthrough smartphone that changed phones for forever, was completely and totally redesigned after its first year, because the design was incredibly flawed.
To not understand the significance of this, is really to forfeit your opinion on what Apple will or will not do. You CANNOT logically state that Apple would return to an aluminum iPhone (no matter how sexy it might look), after having already moved away from it.
2 straight years, the iPhone 3G and 3GS have unibody plastic design. The SAME one. This is not a coincidence, or laziness, or any other 4th grade opinion....its what the iPhone is. It's not going to change.
The most Apple will do with the design, is make it a little taller to accommodate more pixels, but the design will remain. They may offer a few more colors, or they may not.
Plastic, Unibody iPhones are here to stay. To state otherwise, is to fantasize, and ignore reality. (which is fine, just acknowledge it please).
Almost everyone has posted that they feel the next iPhone could look something like this...
...which is completely ridiculous based on logic and common sense. But it has been my experience that Macrumors forums and "logic" and "common sense" cannot exist in the same place at the same time.
Memory also seems to be a problem around here. For example, Apple's breakthrough smartphone that changed phones for forever, was completely and totally redesigned after its first year, because the design was incredibly flawed.
To not understand the significance of this, is really to forfeit your opinion on what Apple will or will not do. You CANNOT logically state that Apple would return to an aluminum iPhone (no matter how sexy it might look), after having already moved away from it.
2 straight years, the iPhone 3G and 3GS have unibody plastic design. The SAME one. This is not a coincidence, or laziness, or any other 4th grade opinion....its what the iPhone is. It's not going to change.
The most Apple will do with the design, is make it a little taller to accommodate more pixels, but the design will remain. They may offer a few more colors, or they may not.
Plastic, Unibody iPhones are here to stay. To state otherwise, is to fantasize, and ignore reality. (which is fine, just acknowledge it please).
more...
takao
Jan 12, 08:03 PM
Did he really say 10 million within a year? Surely he jests. It's not even coming out in Europe until and if he's thinking 10 million in the US alone, um... that's like 15% of Cingular's customer base.
i thought it was 2008 but then i guess it could also be 2009 ;)
i thought it comes out later this year and 2008 in asia ?
oh well if it's 2008 in europe ... that's what ? a full spring and an autumn collection of new phones ? ( ;) )
i thought it was 2008 but then i guess it could also be 2009 ;)
i thought it comes out later this year and 2008 in asia ?
oh well if it's 2008 in europe ... that's what ? a full spring and an autumn collection of new phones ? ( ;) )
EricNau
Nov 24, 01:24 AM
Looks like it's up and running now. :)
GFLPraxis
Apr 13, 12:05 PM
Go ahead and opt out of your full-body scans... if you're doing it for the "health" reason you're tilting at a very small windmill.
The "Health" angle is murky, but TSA uses opt-out ratios as proof of acceptance. They've put out multiple press releases pushing >2% opt out rates as proof that people feel safer and don't mind the new security measures. So, I'm going to opt out every time, if for no other reason than to drive up the cost for them.
The "Health" angle is murky, but TSA uses opt-out ratios as proof of acceptance. They've put out multiple press releases pushing >2% opt out rates as proof that people feel safer and don't mind the new security measures. So, I'm going to opt out every time, if for no other reason than to drive up the cost for them.
chaosbunny
May 4, 03:16 AM
... if it had accurate stylus input.
Sign! With this an iPad would be interesting for me for drawing. A stylus beats fingers for drawing, the Egypts knew that 5000 years ago, but seems like Steve doesn't.
Sign! With this an iPad would be interesting for me for drawing. A stylus beats fingers for drawing, the Egypts knew that 5000 years ago, but seems like Steve doesn't.
ipodtoucher
Apr 6, 11:09 PM
I'm gonna have to try this.
AGREED!
....i knew i should have stopped at harris teeter after the bank.....
AGREED!
....i knew i should have stopped at harris teeter after the bank.....
spydr
Oct 5, 08:39 PM
So when will Real be dead? I have a feeling that after our inevitable nuclear war, it'll just be cockroaches, twinkies and them. At least they'll be in good company.LMAO:D :D :D :D
BlueRevolution
Oct 29, 12:32 AM
I've never understood people who adopt this argument. You're essentially saying that, because a few folks think piracy is free advertising, Apple should give up all its intellectual property and copyrights. It would be like me spending money on a Lamborghini and then handing the keys to random strangers in the hopes they'd return it the next morning to encourage them to buy one of their own. Get real!
Again with the physical example fallacy. We're talking about information here. It has no intrinsic value. This means that if I steal it, you still have it. It's not like a Lamborghini. What it IS like is me, a record label, spending money on making music, then letting people listen to it for free on the radio. How dumb would that be? :rolleyes:
Again with the physical example fallacy. We're talking about information here. It has no intrinsic value. This means that if I steal it, you still have it. It's not like a Lamborghini. What it IS like is me, a record label, spending money on making music, then letting people listen to it for free on the radio. How dumb would that be? :rolleyes:
Macky-Mac
May 4, 03:39 PM
Any law that tells a physician what they can and can't ask a patient, or who they must treat despite their own personal views - is stupid....
....The hypocrisy from those of you on the left on this issue is pretty clear. If this was the GLBTA trying to pass a similar law regarding homosexuality, etc. you'd have no problem with it.
considering that everybody seems to be agreeing with you on the stupidity of this law, your claim of "hypocrisy" seems completely empty
....The hypocrisy from those of you on the left on this issue is pretty clear. If this was the GLBTA trying to pass a similar law regarding homosexuality, etc. you'd have no problem with it.
considering that everybody seems to be agreeing with you on the stupidity of this law, your claim of "hypocrisy" seems completely empty
