nate13
Apr 25, 11:55 AM
Fake. Display looks like paper / printed.
agreed. Even though with the white one, I'd expect a 64GB available. Just makes sense; they used to have an ipod nano that only came in black in the largest size, if memory serves...
agreed. Even though with the white one, I'd expect a 64GB available. Just makes sense; they used to have an ipod nano that only came in black in the largest size, if memory serves...
lmalave
Oct 19, 01:14 PM
Check out this to boost Mac OS X market share:
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/business/0,39020645,39284186,00.htm
If Apple does it, Windows (read M$) will be out of business in three years!
I can't believe a team full of idiots at Gartner, probably all making six figures plus, came up with such garbage. They really need to go to business school or just get some common sense. Apple is not a commodity computer maker. Apple is an innovation-based company. Apple is largely insulated from price pressures. It's *DELL* that should be worried. They compete on price and eventually some Taiwanese or Chinese company is going to start crushing them. U.S. companies are eventually going to have to exit the commodity PC market just as U.S. companies had to exit the memory chip market and largely exit the steel and textile manufacturing industries in earlier generations.
So since Apple is not competing on price, they will eventually be limited to probably no more than 10 to 15 percent of the market. But they should be able to remain stable at that level, just as luxury car brands are able to maintain a certain market share.
And as Jobs and others at Apple have pointed out *many* times, their advantage is in controlling both the software *and* the hardware. THAT'S their advantage. Not just the software. It applies not only to Macs but also to the iPod. Compare the Mac experience to a PC experience. Or compare the iPod experience to other MP3 players. The Apple products "just work" because Apple is able to control the hardware that the software runs on. If Apple gives up the hardware/software integration advantage, that will be the beginning of the end...
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/business/0,39020645,39284186,00.htm
If Apple does it, Windows (read M$) will be out of business in three years!
I can't believe a team full of idiots at Gartner, probably all making six figures plus, came up with such garbage. They really need to go to business school or just get some common sense. Apple is not a commodity computer maker. Apple is an innovation-based company. Apple is largely insulated from price pressures. It's *DELL* that should be worried. They compete on price and eventually some Taiwanese or Chinese company is going to start crushing them. U.S. companies are eventually going to have to exit the commodity PC market just as U.S. companies had to exit the memory chip market and largely exit the steel and textile manufacturing industries in earlier generations.
So since Apple is not competing on price, they will eventually be limited to probably no more than 10 to 15 percent of the market. But they should be able to remain stable at that level, just as luxury car brands are able to maintain a certain market share.
And as Jobs and others at Apple have pointed out *many* times, their advantage is in controlling both the software *and* the hardware. THAT'S their advantage. Not just the software. It applies not only to Macs but also to the iPod. Compare the Mac experience to a PC experience. Or compare the iPod experience to other MP3 players. The Apple products "just work" because Apple is able to control the hardware that the software runs on. If Apple gives up the hardware/software integration advantage, that will be the beginning of the end...
CaptainHaddock
Oct 3, 11:33 AM
And how exactly would they know to sue you in the first place?
And since when can you get a criminal record from a civil lawsuit? Since never, that's when.
And since when can you get a criminal record from a civil lawsuit? Since never, that's when.
k8to
Nov 17, 11:44 AM
To software, AMD and Intel are compatable parts. They aren't identical, but most software won't care at all. So this wouldn't be a "switch" like IBM to x86. Nothing disruptive.
The question is, of course, where is the lower-power AMD cpu. Tulatins are not _bad_ chips for power efficiency, but they're certainly bested by core 2 duo. The lack of any strong competition makes this rumour just that.
The question is, of course, where is the lower-power AMD cpu. Tulatins are not _bad_ chips for power efficiency, but they're certainly bested by core 2 duo. The lack of any strong competition makes this rumour just that.
englishman
Apr 27, 04:04 AM
Arn
Can you fix the title attribute for the arrows?
Can you fix the title attribute for the arrows?
illitrate23
Jan 12, 04:51 AM
MacBook:
hairstyle – Long Razor Cut
and razor cut first.
Razor cut - Men Hair Style
.jpg "Razor cut bob Hairstyle for")
Razor cut bob Hairstyle for
length haircuts, Then
Best cute short razor cut
razor cut bob with bangs
hairdo with razor cut mane
black teens hairstyles. The
2009 razor-cut bob hair
Short Funky Razor Cut
Relaxed Layered Razor Cut
2010 long curly best razor cut
Mr. DG
Jan 9, 01:57 PM
dont refresh the news story page. There's a news ticker above that says what apple have released.
twoodcc
Apr 9, 11:22 PM
I'm doin' all the ppd I can without spending more money on hardware right now:D I would like to replace 5 machines with a new Mac Pro when they come out (4 really slow and my current Mac Pro). It's h**l waiting for Apple sometimes :eek: Hurry up Apple!! :apple:
What I want: Mac Pro with 12-16 cores, 24-32 threads, 2-3Ghz, 24 gigs of fast ddr3 ram, same case design outside plus usb 3.0, inside room for 3-4 2.5 inch ssd's in raid 0, 4 3.5 inch sata 2.0 or 3.0 (interchangable) and support for 3 GTX 295/480 cards.
Price $4-5k I'm not asking too much am I?
What I really want: Mac Pro with 64 cores, 256 threads, 3-4Ghz, 32 gigs of fast memristor (http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/emerging-tech/2010/04/09/memristor-discovery-could-lead-to-faster-hpc-40088582/) memory ON CHIP, 64 gigs of ddr3 ram, and a few other things in an anodized aluminum case :p
dang. yeah, not asking for much huh :cool:
but don't be surprised if you don't get half of that, and it costs $6k.
this is one of the main things that bothers me about apple. i just don't understand why they wait so long to update the mac pros like this. at least announce something
What I want: Mac Pro with 12-16 cores, 24-32 threads, 2-3Ghz, 24 gigs of fast ddr3 ram, same case design outside plus usb 3.0, inside room for 3-4 2.5 inch ssd's in raid 0, 4 3.5 inch sata 2.0 or 3.0 (interchangable) and support for 3 GTX 295/480 cards.
Price $4-5k I'm not asking too much am I?
What I really want: Mac Pro with 64 cores, 256 threads, 3-4Ghz, 32 gigs of fast memristor (http://www.zdnet.co.uk/news/emerging-tech/2010/04/09/memristor-discovery-could-lead-to-faster-hpc-40088582/) memory ON CHIP, 64 gigs of ddr3 ram, and a few other things in an anodized aluminum case :p
dang. yeah, not asking for much huh :cool:
but don't be surprised if you don't get half of that, and it costs $6k.
this is one of the main things that bothers me about apple. i just don't understand why they wait so long to update the mac pros like this. at least announce something
lordonuthin
Apr 10, 11:39 PM
yeah that's true, but now what's the excuse? the processors are out now!
I know!! Last year they had the Mac Pro out before the cpu's were even announced by Intel!
I know!! Last year they had the Mac Pro out before the cpu's were even announced by Intel!
emotion
Nov 16, 10:51 AM
Perhaps but they are not competing right now on either products or road maps.
You don't change vendor like the wind blows.
IBM and Motorola? :)
It's nice for Apple to have the bargaining chip when dealing with Intel. I agree they're unlikely to follow up on it (if there's any substance at all....which is seriously doubt).
You don't change vendor like the wind blows.
IBM and Motorola? :)
It's nice for Apple to have the bargaining chip when dealing with Intel. I agree they're unlikely to follow up on it (if there's any substance at all....which is seriously doubt).
0815
Apr 6, 07:52 AM
An app that brings all the things I hate together. [... removed bashing ...]
So why bother? If you don't like it, don't download it. There are thousands of apps in the store that I don't like or have no interest in. No need to comment everywhere how much I dislike them and how much every user of those is a brainless idiot. there is a very simple solution with basically two options:
(1) if you (think you) like it -> download and try
(2) if you don't like it, don't download it
It is not that this app is forced to be installed on your phone. It is your choice.
I always enjoyed the creative iAds, I downloaded the app and found to my surprise that it even shows me (in the US) some of the European ads which I otherwise wouldn't have seen.
The only thing I wonder about is: is Apple getting money if people click on the ads? (my guess would be no)
So why bother? If you don't like it, don't download it. There are thousands of apps in the store that I don't like or have no interest in. No need to comment everywhere how much I dislike them and how much every user of those is a brainless idiot. there is a very simple solution with basically two options:
(1) if you (think you) like it -> download and try
(2) if you don't like it, don't download it
It is not that this app is forced to be installed on your phone. It is your choice.
I always enjoyed the creative iAds, I downloaded the app and found to my surprise that it even shows me (in the US) some of the European ads which I otherwise wouldn't have seen.
The only thing I wonder about is: is Apple getting money if people click on the ads? (my guess would be no)
Neodym
Oct 3, 05:28 PM
Unfortunately this is EXACTLY why Apple ISN'T producing a headless mid-range Mac. They will lose out tremendously on display sales. They either want to sell you a display within the unit (iMac, MacBooks) or sell you a display with the unit (Mini, Pro). Mini users will buy one because A. they're in the store and B. don't know any better. Pro users will buy one because they are top-of-the line, beautiful screens and they, generally, have money to burn. Mid-range users (and prosumers) know well enough that they can get a cheap, good-enough monitor for $200 from NewEgg or eBay (for the daring). Instead, we prosumers either have to settle for the iMac or splurge on the Mac Pro.
Mmmh - i see it a little different:
Why shouldn't the so-called "prosumers" be interested in beautiful and top-of-the-line monitors as well as the "pros"? Even worse - the target clientel for a Pro computer often earn their living on those machines and they might need raw power, but not necessarily a "beautiful" screen - especially if the old one would still do its work.
Thus i would suspect prosumers to be more willing to "burn some money" for a nice Apple screen just because it fits their lifestyle, than someone who has to invest to earn money on it. And don't forget how Apple introduced the mini - it was targetted at users who ALREADY OWN a monitor (and keyboard and mouse).
So one of the main target groups for Apple monitors would be exactly the clientel which currently is not able to find something proper: A more powerful computer than the mini, but less pricey than a Mac Pro.
Therefore the gap between a mini and a Mac Pro is a little big indeed! Not only because of the initial purchase cost, but also because of the cost following when you have to buy "pro" equipment (like e.g. memory) at "pro" prices as well...!
The iMac aims at a completely different audience here and is a good complement, but never a replacement for a mid-class machine.
If Apple wants to continue to grow they HAVE to differentiate their lineup a little more! Personally i would not mind if they would do it in the stylish area and bring up some acrylic beauty again or even introduce some really new (or at least different) ideas. But it is not that important as long as the they eventually close that huge gap!
Regards
Neodym
Mmmh - i see it a little different:
Why shouldn't the so-called "prosumers" be interested in beautiful and top-of-the-line monitors as well as the "pros"? Even worse - the target clientel for a Pro computer often earn their living on those machines and they might need raw power, but not necessarily a "beautiful" screen - especially if the old one would still do its work.
Thus i would suspect prosumers to be more willing to "burn some money" for a nice Apple screen just because it fits their lifestyle, than someone who has to invest to earn money on it. And don't forget how Apple introduced the mini - it was targetted at users who ALREADY OWN a monitor (and keyboard and mouse).
So one of the main target groups for Apple monitors would be exactly the clientel which currently is not able to find something proper: A more powerful computer than the mini, but less pricey than a Mac Pro.
Therefore the gap between a mini and a Mac Pro is a little big indeed! Not only because of the initial purchase cost, but also because of the cost following when you have to buy "pro" equipment (like e.g. memory) at "pro" prices as well...!
The iMac aims at a completely different audience here and is a good complement, but never a replacement for a mid-class machine.
If Apple wants to continue to grow they HAVE to differentiate their lineup a little more! Personally i would not mind if they would do it in the stylish area and bring up some acrylic beauty again or even introduce some really new (or at least different) ideas. But it is not that important as long as the they eventually close that huge gap!
Regards
Neodym
DTphonehome
Oct 19, 04:37 PM
Dividends, yes that would be a good idea, what with $10 billion in cash on hand. Microsoft finally decided that their cash horde was becoming a bit of an embarrassment and declared one.
Seriously, the more I think about it, the more upset I am that they aren't offering one. I mean, what the heck are they goint to do with $10 billion? Even the most aggressive expansion and R&D strategy doesn't justify holding onto that. And it would be a great way to offset any damage from the options fiasco. And it would boost the shares 5% (at least) on announcement. They USED to pay a dividend (1987-1995). It's time to bring it back!
Seriously, the more I think about it, the more upset I am that they aren't offering one. I mean, what the heck are they goint to do with $10 billion? Even the most aggressive expansion and R&D strategy doesn't justify holding onto that. And it would be a great way to offset any damage from the options fiasco. And it would boost the shares 5% (at least) on announcement. They USED to pay a dividend (1987-1995). It's time to bring it back!
MacsRgr8
Jan 5, 06:37 PM
Maybe I'm missing something, but doesn't the idea of a spoiler-free experience sort of run completely opposite to the purpose of this site? You sit around all year reading rumors and then don't want to be spoiled three hours before they post the keynote? Huh?
IMHO candidate for best post of 2007. :cool:
IMHO candidate for best post of 2007. :cool:
Reach
Jan 12, 02:03 PM
Just stupid.. I sure wouldn't invite them to my expo, but kids will be kids I guess..
apolloa
Nov 6, 06:21 PM
I've pre-ordered the Prestige Edition pack on the PS3. It's already been shipped and I will get it on Monday or Tuesday, shame really, cause I cannot open it until Christmas Day!!!!! hahahaha, oh I shall have to be strong..... but I thinks it's a cool pressy. I may play with the toy car more first though :D:D
Apple 26.2
Mar 24, 03:18 PM
El numero diez para el OS X... felicidades!
robbieduncan
Apr 21, 11:48 AM
Apathy would be not clicking anything.
True apathy would be not caring if you've clicked anything or not.
True apathy would be not caring if you've clicked anything or not.
pkson
May 3, 09:39 PM
Nice ad!
goober1223
Apr 6, 11:21 AM
With respect, you clearly don't work in advertising. You pay to put ads in front of the right people, not just anyone. Especially not competing advertisers and agencies. Why do you think Google (a) makes so much advertising revenue and (b) collects so much data about its users? Coincidence?
Secondly individuals are just as greedy as corporations, and generally get to operate outside of the spotlight. Apple has a lot to lose if its iAd platform is seen to be poorly targeting users, but an App developer has a lot to gain from indiscriminate iAd spamming. So in this case, yes, for the sake of self interest I'd expect Apple to reimburse advertisers for clicks inside their iAd app, and I'd expect an independent developer of a similar app to laugh all the way to the bank.
I never said btw I'd expect Apple to reimburse developers for their time on rejected apps. Or if I did I didn't mean it.
I know you didn't say that. I was just explaining my original statement that said that they should.
And no, I don't work in advertising (electrical engineer), so you certainly bring a different view, which I appreciate.
As far as a comparison between corporations and individuals, and in this case Apple, I still see no proof that they aren't charging advertisers for displaying these ads. Certainly, they are more capable than a 3rd party in reimbursing such money, but I also see no proof that there is an exorbitant amount of money to be made here. It's a cool gimmick that will not spend much time in actual use, especially if the ads don't change very often, and if there is no additional content to the application.
Besides, pertaining to your best point, how well are iAds targeted at this point? Considering how few big advertising partners there are, I have a hard time understanding how well they are able to advertise when these ads also aren't included in general browsing, but specifically-purposed apps.
Certainly, Apple wants to get there with iAds, but the first step seems to be to take the premium off of the price. The infrastructure may cost a lot, but they have tons of cash to drain on this project if they want to make it a true competition with google and operate similarly. For instance, if I'm playing "Doodle Bowling", the odds that I will get an iAd for anything relevant to bowling is zero. I also associate bowling with greasy bowling alley food, too, but the odds of having any food advertised (on purpose) appears to be zero, as well. The odds of getting an advertisement for a local bowling alley? Again, zero. If I go online and search "doodle bowling" they have tons of options to select from in targeting my search: past search history (and whatever else they know about me), they know that my search is related to bowling, mobile applications, cartoonish games, etc.
The point is, the differences are innumerous. iAds is absolutely primitive in its targeting capability simply by virtue of how many advertising partners it has, and it should not be any different (at this point) how those ad impressions are received.
Secondly individuals are just as greedy as corporations, and generally get to operate outside of the spotlight. Apple has a lot to lose if its iAd platform is seen to be poorly targeting users, but an App developer has a lot to gain from indiscriminate iAd spamming. So in this case, yes, for the sake of self interest I'd expect Apple to reimburse advertisers for clicks inside their iAd app, and I'd expect an independent developer of a similar app to laugh all the way to the bank.
I never said btw I'd expect Apple to reimburse developers for their time on rejected apps. Or if I did I didn't mean it.
I know you didn't say that. I was just explaining my original statement that said that they should.
And no, I don't work in advertising (electrical engineer), so you certainly bring a different view, which I appreciate.
As far as a comparison between corporations and individuals, and in this case Apple, I still see no proof that they aren't charging advertisers for displaying these ads. Certainly, they are more capable than a 3rd party in reimbursing such money, but I also see no proof that there is an exorbitant amount of money to be made here. It's a cool gimmick that will not spend much time in actual use, especially if the ads don't change very often, and if there is no additional content to the application.
Besides, pertaining to your best point, how well are iAds targeted at this point? Considering how few big advertising partners there are, I have a hard time understanding how well they are able to advertise when these ads also aren't included in general browsing, but specifically-purposed apps.
Certainly, Apple wants to get there with iAds, but the first step seems to be to take the premium off of the price. The infrastructure may cost a lot, but they have tons of cash to drain on this project if they want to make it a true competition with google and operate similarly. For instance, if I'm playing "Doodle Bowling", the odds that I will get an iAd for anything relevant to bowling is zero. I also associate bowling with greasy bowling alley food, too, but the odds of having any food advertised (on purpose) appears to be zero, as well. The odds of getting an advertisement for a local bowling alley? Again, zero. If I go online and search "doodle bowling" they have tons of options to select from in targeting my search: past search history (and whatever else they know about me), they know that my search is related to bowling, mobile applications, cartoonish games, etc.
The point is, the differences are innumerous. iAds is absolutely primitive in its targeting capability simply by virtue of how many advertising partners it has, and it should not be any different (at this point) how those ad impressions are received.
WestonHarvey1
Jul 21, 09:37 AM
Show me another phone that can drop calls from just the position of one finger. Nokia have their problems at the moment, but their reception has always been rock solid.
That only happens in extremely weak signal areas. Other phones will do that too, it just isn't as obvious where to touch it.
That only happens in extremely weak signal areas. Other phones will do that too, it just isn't as obvious where to touch it.
Compile 'em all
Jan 12, 08:00 PM
Did he really say 10 million within a year? Surely he jests. It's not even coming out in Europe until
The iPhone will be released in Europe in Q4 2007.
The iPhone will be released in Europe in Q4 2007.
AHDuke99
Apr 15, 12:29 PM
It can't be all metal. Otherwise it will have some serious signal issues.
Cutwolf
Mar 17, 06:41 AM
Not to condone OP's actions in any way, but karma isn't real.
People should conduct themselves according to their moral code, not out of fear that the universe will somehow reward or punish them. This is the 21st century, it's time mankind grew up and took some personal responsibility. There is no "higher power" judging our actions.
Man, this thread is full of douchiness. Karma is symbolic, not literal. Although it's cute that you were so ready to jump on your anti religion high horse. You sound like a high school student who just got out of philosophy class.
People should conduct themselves according to their moral code, not out of fear that the universe will somehow reward or punish them. This is the 21st century, it's time mankind grew up and took some personal responsibility. There is no "higher power" judging our actions.
Man, this thread is full of douchiness. Karma is symbolic, not literal. Although it's cute that you were so ready to jump on your anti religion high horse. You sound like a high school student who just got out of philosophy class.
No comments:
Post a Comment