alfonsog
Apr 27, 09:11 AM
If anyone wants complete privacy they shouldn't use a cell phone anyway. Or internet, or credit cards, or electricity, or work, or pay taxes. I would think Droid phones would be worse since their creator was Google which is all about tracking you to sell ads. No difference than junk mail, they know your home address and what stores are in your proximity.
Also to Apple logging might mean using the data to track you, which they aren't.
Also to Apple logging might mean using the data to track you, which they aren't.
LagunaSol
Apr 20, 01:48 AM
But it's ok for Apple to sue and Australian grocery store because they think the letter W looks like their logo? LMAO. Please.
Why do you keep countering an argument that no one is actually making?
Straw man fail.
Why do you keep countering an argument that no one is actually making?
Straw man fail.
parapup
Mar 31, 04:03 PM
Google/Android can't win in Gruber and his follower's minds. If they control to reduce UI variations - it's not OPEN anymore. If they don't control then there are complaints about carrier crapware. Either way Gruber and co. exist to move the goal posts to suit their cult. iOS has favorable numbers - numbers FTW!! Oh wait that's no longer true - numbers hardly matter!! Android has UI variances because of lack of Google control - BAAAD stuff! Google is putting control in place to promote more uniformity - GAAAWWD AWFUL BAIT and SWITCH!!
So nothing to see here, move along.
So nothing to see here, move along.
ChickenSwartz
Jul 27, 11:54 AM
Has anyone ever thought that the reasons the MBPs run hot is because they were originally designed to have a cooler chip in them...Merom.
I know it had been rumored that Apple originally wanted to wait for Merom but "settled" for Yonah to get Intel in faster. Or maybe I am just trying to give myself hope that I will get a super cool MBP in a month (or less?).
I know it had been rumored that Apple originally wanted to wait for Merom but "settled" for Yonah to get Intel in faster. Or maybe I am just trying to give myself hope that I will get a super cool MBP in a month (or less?).
Bob Knob
Nov 28, 06:53 PM
Actually, they do. They also got paid on every blank tape sold when cassettes were big. I think it is crazy for everyone to think that the music industry is greedy when it getting squeezed out of all of their revenue streams. So, Apple makes hundreds of millions off of their back on the itunes site, and a billion off of iPod sales, and they cannot share in the wealth?
It doesn't cost the consumer any more, why wouldn't you want the people who actually make the music you are listening to get compensated?
This debate is stale. People want something for nothing.
I work in a related industry...
You're wrong, this is 100% greed. Apple does not make squat off music sales. The artists would get none of the "new iPod money" because it is not in their contracts... just like the blank tape royalties, no artist will see a dime from this.
Why are the big labels failing? They sign artists that suck, and the dozen or so executives at the top are way over paid.
Everything is passed on to the consumer level, you obviously need a business/economics lesson.
It doesn't cost the consumer any more, why wouldn't you want the people who actually make the music you are listening to get compensated?
This debate is stale. People want something for nothing.
I work in a related industry...
You're wrong, this is 100% greed. Apple does not make squat off music sales. The artists would get none of the "new iPod money" because it is not in their contracts... just like the blank tape royalties, no artist will see a dime from this.
Why are the big labels failing? They sign artists that suck, and the dozen or so executives at the top are way over paid.
Everything is passed on to the consumer level, you obviously need a business/economics lesson.
Unspeaked
Nov 29, 11:01 AM
To those saying they'll boycott, I'd just like to point out...
...Universal is by far the largest record label in the world, and those of you that say you don't listen to anyone of their artists might need to dig deeper into their subsidiaries, as just a few of the musicians in their stable are:
The Carpenters
Jimi Hendrix
Nikelback
Carole King
Andrea Bocell
Four Tops
Lionel Richie
Cat Stevens
The Jackson 5
The Andrews Sisters
vera wang princess advert.
vera wang perfume.
of Vera Wang#39;s Princess
vera wang princess dresses.
Vera Wang Princess
attached to a perfume.
I knew that was the perfume I
Vera Wang Princess perfume
wang princess perfume ad,
Free Vera Wang Perfume 4ml
vera wang princess wedding
Vera Wang Princess Perfume box
...Universal is by far the largest record label in the world, and those of you that say you don't listen to anyone of their artists might need to dig deeper into their subsidiaries, as just a few of the musicians in their stable are:
The Carpenters
Jimi Hendrix
Nikelback
Carole King
Andrea Bocell
Four Tops
Lionel Richie
Cat Stevens
The Jackson 5
The Andrews Sisters
soundbwoy
Apr 27, 10:54 AM
Is it me or are there more idiots about. Damn it people, leave the damn tracking contro alone if I lose my phone, I want to be able to find. I'm so not in the mood to spend $600 again.
marksman
Apr 11, 01:20 PM
The iPhone 4 is still the best smartphone in the market, so not surprising.
As for people expecting a 4" screen on the next iPhone dream on. They are not going to make an iPhone with a bigger screen.]]
The people who are saying this is bad for apple are clearly spec chasers.. Which is not what 99% of all iPhone customers are.... They buy into apple for the experience of the UI, the device and the ecosystem. None of that changes or goes away... None of that experience stops existing because some sucky android phone has a better CPU.
The iPhone 4 runs everything that is available for it really well... That some commodity android handset maker has to beef up their spec sheet because they can't compete where it really counts doesn't matter.
The reality is the iPhone doesn't get surpassed until the next iPhone comes out...
Again I am amazed at how many people here think a 4" screen is the wave of the future. It is not.
As for people expecting a 4" screen on the next iPhone dream on. They are not going to make an iPhone with a bigger screen.]]
The people who are saying this is bad for apple are clearly spec chasers.. Which is not what 99% of all iPhone customers are.... They buy into apple for the experience of the UI, the device and the ecosystem. None of that changes or goes away... None of that experience stops existing because some sucky android phone has a better CPU.
The iPhone 4 runs everything that is available for it really well... That some commodity android handset maker has to beef up their spec sheet because they can't compete where it really counts doesn't matter.
The reality is the iPhone doesn't get surpassed until the next iPhone comes out...
Again I am amazed at how many people here think a 4" screen is the wave of the future. It is not.
Rt&Dzine
Apr 27, 08:54 AM
Funny I had to prove my education credentials and proof of citizenship for 3 companies that extend offers.
Is it really out of line for the president to furnish such information?
Did I cross the the line of being a racist?
He did furnish his official state-certified short-form birth certificate.
Is it really out of line for the president to furnish such information?
Did I cross the the line of being a racist?
He did furnish his official state-certified short-form birth certificate.
mr.steevo
Apr 28, 04:51 PM
This thread is Still rattling on about this?
The Titanic is still sinking...
The Titanic is still sinking...
Leoff
Sep 19, 07:30 AM
i agree, I need a computer to encode video in iDVD because it takes forever on my PPC. That little difference in power is a big difference.
If you're still using the PPC, then you won't notice the difference between 2.0 and 2.16 on Intel. It will simply be "faster." Go out, get yourself a nice new MacBook, and enjoy.
If you're still using the PPC, then you won't notice the difference between 2.0 and 2.16 on Intel. It will simply be "faster." Go out, get yourself a nice new MacBook, and enjoy.
BoyBach
Aug 7, 04:27 PM
I voted for the Enhanced Dashboard. This seems really useful to me - my own personal web clipping service of the things I want to check regularly with the click of the Mighty Mouse Scrollball :)
I also think 'Spaces' will become invaluable within a few hours of getting used to it.
I also think 'Spaces' will become invaluable within a few hours of getting used to it.
Eraserhead
Mar 22, 01:47 PM
With regards to Libya without the no fly zone there would have been a massacre, and without bombing Gaddafi's troops there isn't much hope of anything other than a stalemate, which is also unideal.
With the rebels on the ground it seems highly unlikely that we'll be in Libya for years to come or anything like that.
The big difference between Libya and Iraq is that in Iraq there wasn't a large insurgence controlling a decent proportion of the country before the troops went in.
With the rebels on the ground it seems highly unlikely that we'll be in Libya for years to come or anything like that.
The big difference between Libya and Iraq is that in Iraq there wasn't a large insurgence controlling a decent proportion of the country before the troops went in.
Digitaljim
Nov 28, 08:05 PM
So Universal Music Group must have received something in the region of $112 so far from Zune sales.
SevenInchScrew
Aug 19, 09:21 AM
I'm 100% sure the GT site says all the cars were remodeled for the ps3, as in not the ps2 cars.
http://us.gran-turismo.com/us/news/d5247.html
recreated
As in not copypasta'd over from gt4.
All that I get from that quote is that they are using older models, but that they will, obviously, be rendered in the new GT5 engine. So, the marketing team can say all they want, but actual screen shots of Standard� cars do not show much improvement, if any at all, resolution increase notwithstanding.
Do we know if all cars have fully modelled interiors or if thats just for the luxury cars?
No, the only cars that have an interior view are the Premium� models. From NSB's link above...
Standard cars do not support vehicle interior camera views.
http://us.gran-turismo.com/us/news/d5247.html
recreated
As in not copypasta'd over from gt4.
All that I get from that quote is that they are using older models, but that they will, obviously, be rendered in the new GT5 engine. So, the marketing team can say all they want, but actual screen shots of Standard� cars do not show much improvement, if any at all, resolution increase notwithstanding.
Do we know if all cars have fully modelled interiors or if thats just for the luxury cars?
No, the only cars that have an interior view are the Premium� models. From NSB's link above...
Standard cars do not support vehicle interior camera views.
barkomatic
Apr 11, 11:37 AM
If the iPhone 5 has a bigger screen and 4G connectivity it will be worth it. I can't imagine Apple will release another phone with only 3G with all these Verizon 4G phones coming onto the market.
gkarris
Apr 7, 10:44 PM
I was at an Apple store and I saw a salesperson holding one new in the box and was just taking it to the back.
The sign up front said "iPads available every morning at 9:00 am".
I think that says it all... :eek:
I work in retail - if we have a product, we'll sell it (why would we deny a customer or "make them come back the next morning to wait in a line"?).
The sign up front said "iPads available every morning at 9:00 am".
I think that says it all... :eek:
I work in retail - if we have a product, we'll sell it (why would we deny a customer or "make them come back the next morning to wait in a line"?).
Silentwave
Aug 27, 12:19 PM
Yup, heat is no problem. :) Cost on the other hand is. Going from a 2.4 GHz Conroe from a 1.83 GHz Yonah on the low-end is roughly a 30% increase in cost JUST for the CPU.
Um....
E6600 Conroe 2.4GHz: Release price $316
T2400 Yonah 1.83GHz: Release price $294
Vera Wang Rock Princess,
Um....
E6600 Conroe 2.4GHz: Release price $316
T2400 Yonah 1.83GHz: Release price $294
Malligator
Mar 31, 04:27 PM
what is this bash apple competitors day?
What is this, "let's go on an Apple fansite and act surpised that it's full of Apple fans" day?
What is this, "let's go on an Apple fansite and act surpised that it's full of Apple fans" day?
krcbkidz
Mar 22, 05:07 PM
You obviously don't know much about samsung. Samsung makes RAM and CPU that apple uses in iphone/ipad. Possibly LCD too. A4 was definitely made by samsung. It's pretty certain A5 is also made by samsung, despite rumors TSMC will make them for apple.
Samsung being samsung, they can match Apple in price in tablet forever (well maybe not forever but for a long time) even without making much profit (not that they would do it). Samsung is HUGE. They have plenty of other stuff they can sell with profit.
I know about Samsung & the company's size. Yes, Samsung does manufacture parts for Apple; the parts they manufacture are according to Apple's R&D specifications & are designed by/for Apple only. Apple holds the license for specific parts (ie. the A5/A4 chip designs). Therefore even though Samsung manufactures the parts, they cannot put these parts in other hardware unless deemed so by Apple. Apple pays Samsung a fee to utilize their production facilities, which is a profit for Samsung. This profit is small compared to the margin of parts/production to MSRP that Apple reaps on each iPad. Apple controls hardware development, OS development, & UI development by keeping everything in house. Samsung utilizes a third party OS, & third party processor technology. I don't feel their user experience is as good as it could be. Samsung ultimately controls the manufacturing of the Tab but they leave money on the table as opposed to Apple's business model.
Samsung being samsung, they can match Apple in price in tablet forever (well maybe not forever but for a long time) even without making much profit (not that they would do it). Samsung is HUGE. They have plenty of other stuff they can sell with profit.
I know about Samsung & the company's size. Yes, Samsung does manufacture parts for Apple; the parts they manufacture are according to Apple's R&D specifications & are designed by/for Apple only. Apple holds the license for specific parts (ie. the A5/A4 chip designs). Therefore even though Samsung manufactures the parts, they cannot put these parts in other hardware unless deemed so by Apple. Apple pays Samsung a fee to utilize their production facilities, which is a profit for Samsung. This profit is small compared to the margin of parts/production to MSRP that Apple reaps on each iPad. Apple controls hardware development, OS development, & UI development by keeping everything in house. Samsung utilizes a third party OS, & third party processor technology. I don't feel their user experience is as good as it could be. Samsung ultimately controls the manufacturing of the Tab but they leave money on the table as opposed to Apple's business model.
Cheese
Aug 20, 12:51 PM
Freescale? Where does Freescale have a 64 -bit spot on their road map? (I want to know) Could this be.. really? Freescale? Now there's a twist I for one, did not see
janstett
Oct 23, 11:44 AM
Unfortunately not many multithreaded apps - yet. For a long time most of the multi-threaded apps were just a select few pro level things. 3D/Visualization software, CAD, database systems, etc.. Those of us who had multiprocessor systems bought them because we had a specific software in mind or group of software applications that could take advantage of multiple processors. As current CPU manufacturing processes started hitting a wall right around the 3GHz mark, chip makers started to transition to multiple CPU cores to boost power - makes sense. Software developers have been lazy for years, just riding the wave of ever-increasing MHz. Now the multi-core CPUs are here and the software is behind as many applications need to have serious re-writes done in order to take advantage of multiple processors. Intel tried to get a jump on this with their HT (Hyper Threading) implementation that essentially simulated dual-cores on a CPU by way of two virtual CPUs. Software developers didn't exactly jump on this and warm up to it. But I also don't think the software industry truly believed that CPUs would go multi-core on a mass scale so fast... Intel and AMD both said they would, don't know why the software industry doubted. Intel and AMD are uncommonly good about telling the truth about upcoming products. Both will be shipping quad-core CPU offerings by year's end.
What you're saying isn't entirely true and may give some people the wrong idea.
First, a multicore system is helpful when running multiple CPU-intensive single-threaded applications on a proper multitasking operating system. For example, right now I'm ripping CDs on iTunes. One processor gets used a lot and the other three are idle. I could be using this CPU power for another app.
The reality is that to take advantage of multiple cores, you had to take advantage of threads. Now, I was doing this in my programs with OS/2 back in 1992. I've been writing multithreaded apps my entire career. But writing a threaded application requires thought and work, so naturally many programmers are lazy and avoid threads. Plus it is harder to debug and synchronize a multithreaded application. Windows and Linux people have been doing this since the stone age, and Windows/Linux have had usable multiprocessor systems for more than a decade (it didn't start with Hyperthreading). I had a dual-processor 486 running NT 3.5 circa 1995. It's just been more of an optional "cool trick" to write threaded applications that the timid programmer avoids. Also it's worth noting that it's possible to go overboard with excessive threading and that leads to problems (context switching, thrashing, synchronization, etc).
Now, on the Mac side, OS 9 and below couldn't properly support SMP and it required a hacked version of the OS and a special version of the application. So the history of the Mac world has been, until recently with OSX, to avoid threading and multiprocessing unless specially called for and then at great pain to do so.
So it goes back to getting developers to write threaded applications. Now that we're getting to 4 and 8 core systems, it also presents a problem.
The classic reason to create a thread is to prevent the GUI from locking up while processing. Let's say I write a GUI program that has a calculation that takes 20 seconds. If I do it the lazy way, the GUI will lock up for 20 seconds because it can't process window messages during that time. If I write a thread, the calculation can take place there and leave the GUI thread able to process messages and keep the application alive, and then signal the other thread when it's done.
But now with more than 4 or 8 cores, the problem is how do you break up the work? 9 women can't have a baby in a month. So if your process is still serialized, you still have to wait with 1 processor doing all the work and the others sitting idle. For example, if you encode a video, it is a very serialized process. I hear some work has been done to simultaneously encode macroblocks in parallel, but getting 8 processors to chew on a single video is an interesting problem.
What you're saying isn't entirely true and may give some people the wrong idea.
First, a multicore system is helpful when running multiple CPU-intensive single-threaded applications on a proper multitasking operating system. For example, right now I'm ripping CDs on iTunes. One processor gets used a lot and the other three are idle. I could be using this CPU power for another app.
The reality is that to take advantage of multiple cores, you had to take advantage of threads. Now, I was doing this in my programs with OS/2 back in 1992. I've been writing multithreaded apps my entire career. But writing a threaded application requires thought and work, so naturally many programmers are lazy and avoid threads. Plus it is harder to debug and synchronize a multithreaded application. Windows and Linux people have been doing this since the stone age, and Windows/Linux have had usable multiprocessor systems for more than a decade (it didn't start with Hyperthreading). I had a dual-processor 486 running NT 3.5 circa 1995. It's just been more of an optional "cool trick" to write threaded applications that the timid programmer avoids. Also it's worth noting that it's possible to go overboard with excessive threading and that leads to problems (context switching, thrashing, synchronization, etc).
Now, on the Mac side, OS 9 and below couldn't properly support SMP and it required a hacked version of the OS and a special version of the application. So the history of the Mac world has been, until recently with OSX, to avoid threading and multiprocessing unless specially called for and then at great pain to do so.
So it goes back to getting developers to write threaded applications. Now that we're getting to 4 and 8 core systems, it also presents a problem.
The classic reason to create a thread is to prevent the GUI from locking up while processing. Let's say I write a GUI program that has a calculation that takes 20 seconds. If I do it the lazy way, the GUI will lock up for 20 seconds because it can't process window messages during that time. If I write a thread, the calculation can take place there and leave the GUI thread able to process messages and keep the application alive, and then signal the other thread when it's done.
But now with more than 4 or 8 cores, the problem is how do you break up the work? 9 women can't have a baby in a month. So if your process is still serialized, you still have to wait with 1 processor doing all the work and the others sitting idle. For example, if you encode a video, it is a very serialized process. I hear some work has been done to simultaneously encode macroblocks in parallel, but getting 8 processors to chew on a single video is an interesting problem.
agentmouthwash
Nov 28, 08:17 PM
If this happens, I will proudly use Bit Torrent and pirate all Universal music that I want. Right now I use itunes because the price scheme is perfect. Universal is making a big mistake.
gnasher729
Aug 17, 10:34 AM
It doesn't matter what the tests are if you are doing it for comparison. As long as it is done the same on both machines, who cares?
That is wrong.
Lets say I wrote some Altivec code to make some function faster on a 400 MHz G4, because on that machine it made a noticable difference. After porting to Intel, with the slowest machine (1.66 GHz Core Solo) being at least six times faster, I didn't bother. If you measure that code, you won't find too much difference in speed. It is the code that matters that matters.
That is wrong.
Lets say I wrote some Altivec code to make some function faster on a 400 MHz G4, because on that machine it made a noticable difference. After porting to Intel, with the slowest machine (1.66 GHz Core Solo) being at least six times faster, I didn't bother. If you measure that code, you won't find too much difference in speed. It is the code that matters that matters.