eNcrypTioN
Feb 23, 01:15 PM
So wait I will need to be burdened with a lower time out period because some soccer mom refuses to discipline junior while she sips on a venti iced latte from starbucks in her 2010 QX45 Urban assault vehicle??
wtheck?
I lol'd :D
wtheck?
I lol'd :D
p0intblank
Sep 27, 09:10 AM
Very nice, bring on 10.4.8! :) Possible improvements in Rosetta for Intel Mac users is definitely something to look forward to.
bretm
Apr 16, 03:03 PM
I can't say I am a fan of Adobe Flash as I am a big supporter of an open web, but I must say that if cross-compiled apps are inferior then the customers in the app store will certainly vote with their dollars to favor the natively written apps.
However, I can see Apple putting this new restriction in their license agreement so as to protect themselves in case the Adobe folks find some way to sneak things onto the iPhone via their cross-compiling tools. Apple is protecting their turf, but by error on the side of caution they set themselves up for bad PR even if they intend to be more lax in acting on those restrictions.
Here is another example of that occurring.... certainly Apple is choosing to reserve the right to bend the rules where they see fit. But without the strict wording in the developer agreement they really wouldn't have a leg to stand on. They are doing the same with pornography by revoking/rejecting all those junk porn apps that polluted the app store while still allowing the "main stream" stuff from established publishers.
On one hand, its Apple's store and if they don't want to pollute their shelves with garbage then I applaud them. However, somebody is going to cry foul since there is not another legitimate store for iPhone apps, and I wonder if this will eventually blow-up as some sort of new anti-trust thing.
Here's what I think the cross-compiler issue is. Adobe had the same sort of problem before they bought flash, with their app that made flash files. It was called LiveMotion and it was great. The problem with that app though, was that Macromedia controlled flash, and adobe could only reverse engineer it after the latest version had been released. So, the features of Flash 7 couldn't be realized by the Adobe LiveMotion app until waaaay after the release of Flash 7. Usually near Flash 8, etc. Adobe was essentially always a version behind. Not such a big deal with apps made for desktops and laptops. But if Apple wants to control the experience and have all it's apps updated very quickly for new OS updates, they'd have to reveal all the new features to Adobe way beforehand so that all the people making apps via Adobe's compilier could update them quickly. And of course Apple would be reliant on those developers actually desiring to pay Adobe for an upgrade to flash, which usually only comes out every year and a half or so. Much slower than updates to iPhone and it's OS. So instead, if all the developers are using Apple's tools, Apple can simply slide them a free SDK update and have them recompile. Since updating apps is so simple this way, Apple can easily require that the developers recompile in a certain time frame. Pretty hard to do for the developers that would be going through Flash, and if Adobe didn't update their tools, then the devs couldn't update, and you've got a mess and the only people losing would be the iPhone users, and then of course Apple.
Not saying it's right or wrong. Just saying that's where Apple's coming from. I really don't think they are trying to piss off Adobe in particular. Why should they be angry at Adobe anyway? They're the ones that didn't allow flash. Adobe should be angry at Apple.
However, I can see Apple putting this new restriction in their license agreement so as to protect themselves in case the Adobe folks find some way to sneak things onto the iPhone via their cross-compiling tools. Apple is protecting their turf, but by error on the side of caution they set themselves up for bad PR even if they intend to be more lax in acting on those restrictions.
Here is another example of that occurring.... certainly Apple is choosing to reserve the right to bend the rules where they see fit. But without the strict wording in the developer agreement they really wouldn't have a leg to stand on. They are doing the same with pornography by revoking/rejecting all those junk porn apps that polluted the app store while still allowing the "main stream" stuff from established publishers.
On one hand, its Apple's store and if they don't want to pollute their shelves with garbage then I applaud them. However, somebody is going to cry foul since there is not another legitimate store for iPhone apps, and I wonder if this will eventually blow-up as some sort of new anti-trust thing.
Here's what I think the cross-compiler issue is. Adobe had the same sort of problem before they bought flash, with their app that made flash files. It was called LiveMotion and it was great. The problem with that app though, was that Macromedia controlled flash, and adobe could only reverse engineer it after the latest version had been released. So, the features of Flash 7 couldn't be realized by the Adobe LiveMotion app until waaaay after the release of Flash 7. Usually near Flash 8, etc. Adobe was essentially always a version behind. Not such a big deal with apps made for desktops and laptops. But if Apple wants to control the experience and have all it's apps updated very quickly for new OS updates, they'd have to reveal all the new features to Adobe way beforehand so that all the people making apps via Adobe's compilier could update them quickly. And of course Apple would be reliant on those developers actually desiring to pay Adobe for an upgrade to flash, which usually only comes out every year and a half or so. Much slower than updates to iPhone and it's OS. So instead, if all the developers are using Apple's tools, Apple can simply slide them a free SDK update and have them recompile. Since updating apps is so simple this way, Apple can easily require that the developers recompile in a certain time frame. Pretty hard to do for the developers that would be going through Flash, and if Adobe didn't update their tools, then the devs couldn't update, and you've got a mess and the only people losing would be the iPhone users, and then of course Apple.
Not saying it's right or wrong. Just saying that's where Apple's coming from. I really don't think they are trying to piss off Adobe in particular. Why should they be angry at Adobe anyway? They're the ones that didn't allow flash. Adobe should be angry at Apple.
AppleScruff1
May 5, 01:28 PM
The real question is why do people still buy Macs (in increasing numbers) in spite of this... hmmm... makes you wonder...
Because Apple makes good computers and OSX is a good operating system. Unfortunately, many here are too blind to see or admit that Windows also works well for a substantial portion of the world. They are both great os's.
Because Apple makes good computers and OSX is a good operating system. Unfortunately, many here are too blind to see or admit that Windows also works well for a substantial portion of the world. They are both great os's.
more...
islesguy81
Jun 10, 11:26 AM
If T-mobile gets the iPhone maybe they will have better data plans than AT&T
bartolo5
Jun 18, 04:08 AM
This is easily the most factually complete and correct post in this thread. Kudos!
Why did/do we even have dual/tri-band GSM phones or HSPA phones that don't do AWS - especially now in 2010? Is it antenna design? Is it the extra analog front ends needed? Is it just product market segmentation?
Yes, for every band supported in the phone there needs to be an analog amplifier between the antenna and the RF modem. There are also antenna issues. Antennas have to be designed to be tuned to the specific bands, so if you have a pentaband antenna things can get quite tricky. I am an EE although my antenna design skills are quite rusty, it would seem that 850/900 and 1800/1900 should be easy to implement given that a) grouped together they are closed enough bands, and b) they lie in two groups of frequencies that are multiple exactly by 2, giving you an antenna that has to be exactly half of the wavelength and making it easier to design an antenna with a form that resonates on both frequencies. If you throw 2100Mhz things get complicated and if if you add 1700 even more so.
Whatever it is, the frequency bands supported by the phone are not trivial to implement and they are a technical challenge. That's why many times you get different versions of the same phone for different markets with different supported bands. If it was easy to just one phone for all they would do it.
Why did/do we even have dual/tri-band GSM phones or HSPA phones that don't do AWS - especially now in 2010? Is it antenna design? Is it the extra analog front ends needed? Is it just product market segmentation?
Yes, for every band supported in the phone there needs to be an analog amplifier between the antenna and the RF modem. There are also antenna issues. Antennas have to be designed to be tuned to the specific bands, so if you have a pentaband antenna things can get quite tricky. I am an EE although my antenna design skills are quite rusty, it would seem that 850/900 and 1800/1900 should be easy to implement given that a) grouped together they are closed enough bands, and b) they lie in two groups of frequencies that are multiple exactly by 2, giving you an antenna that has to be exactly half of the wavelength and making it easier to design an antenna with a form that resonates on both frequencies. If you throw 2100Mhz things get complicated and if if you add 1700 even more so.
Whatever it is, the frequency bands supported by the phone are not trivial to implement and they are a technical challenge. That's why many times you get different versions of the same phone for different markets with different supported bands. If it was easy to just one phone for all they would do it.
more...
Mac-Addict
Oct 20, 02:58 PM
Ill be there at 3 if possible xD If my mum can take me lol xD (I am like 13 so..)
Someone needs to hold a sign saying "Macrumors forum member here" and we will know who each other are :P
Edit: Ohh yeah Ill be there for definite :D Getting my t-shirt, buying Leopard :)
Someone needs to hold a sign saying "Macrumors forum member here" and we will know who each other are :P
Edit: Ohh yeah Ill be there for definite :D Getting my t-shirt, buying Leopard :)
Raid
May 3, 01:51 PM
How the hell did you guys elect that fool? I'm even more concerned for you Canadians now. I got no good answer for you Lee, I didn't vote for that party. Maybe the minority position of the last two conservative government gave them a softer image than before, maybe it was due to the lack of a strong Liberal leadership, maybe people were tired of going to the polls and wanted a 4 year break... I got 'nothin. :o
more...
OdduWon
Oct 10, 01:58 PM
i think we may see MB w/ MBP with shuffle and xserve. i level and pro level traffic at the apple store will sell llot of laptops, especially if their curent.
maflynn
May 5, 11:45 AM
It really isn't fair to compare the MBA to a netbook as all they have in common is size. And Widnows is worth its value to over a billion users too.
The other thing to consider is usage. Many people who use a small laptop like the MBA or those listed are not looking for a powerhouse of a computer. Just a tool to surf, do some email or document creation. In that case a netbook is perfectly suited. Beside why spend > 1,000 when you can spend 300 that provides that level of functionality.
I want to point out that I prefer OSX, and buy Macs (and have built a hackintosh). I'm not some anti-apple troll or anyhting.
I base my purchase decisions on what fits my needs the best. There's a number of blind fanboy posts that knock anything thats non apple.
Other computer makers produce good products and windows itself is a good OS. Just because it doesn't have that apple logo means its crap
The other thing to consider is usage. Many people who use a small laptop like the MBA or those listed are not looking for a powerhouse of a computer. Just a tool to surf, do some email or document creation. In that case a netbook is perfectly suited. Beside why spend > 1,000 when you can spend 300 that provides that level of functionality.
I want to point out that I prefer OSX, and buy Macs (and have built a hackintosh). I'm not some anti-apple troll or anyhting.
I base my purchase decisions on what fits my needs the best. There's a number of blind fanboy posts that knock anything thats non apple.
Other computer makers produce good products and windows itself is a good OS. Just because it doesn't have that apple logo means its crap
more...
zap2
Mar 23, 04:45 AM
Ha, ha - Nintendo Launch Party Hopping... :eek:
Have fun! ;)
Haha, heyyy...for how rarely Nintendo launches a truly new handheld, I can give up my saturday night/sunday morning in hopes that it will be fun.
Have fun! ;)
Haha, heyyy...for how rarely Nintendo launches a truly new handheld, I can give up my saturday night/sunday morning in hopes that it will be fun.
PODshady
Nov 21, 04:28 PM
This is a really cool idea
more...
tobefirst
Nov 14, 01:58 PM
I'm sorry, my goal wasn't to keep people out of the topic, but to make it easier to talk about the two separate topics. Why can't you post over there?
He's 11 posts shy of the requirement.
He's 11 posts shy of the requirement.
kainjow
Oct 26, 09:48 PM
Very, very slick. Only problem is that I can't seem to figure out how to flag something as junk, or modify the buttons/icons at the top to flag/junk, ec messages. Any pointers?
I don't think you can. But I thought .Mac already has server side spam filters? Maybe it doesn't?
BTW seems to work fine for the most part on IE7, with a few rendering glitches.
I don't think you can. But I thought .Mac already has server side spam filters? Maybe it doesn't?
BTW seems to work fine for the most part on IE7, with a few rendering glitches.
more...
sarge
Mar 25, 10:45 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)
It isn't that they miscalculated the rise of digital, as miscalculations happen in business, it is the silly decision they made that resulted in the company divesting itself of businesses that had a future. The point is you can miscalculate a bit when it comes to how rapid you core tech will become useless but your planning should recognize that is going to happen and that you need to grow in a different direction. Instead Kodak shrunk itself down around a dying business.
.
Exactly, for those folks who think Kodak was just a film company you're totally off base. They had the diversity but not the vision to adjust to the transition and ended up wholesale auctioning their future. Kinda what we're doing as a country right now.
It isn't that they miscalculated the rise of digital, as miscalculations happen in business, it is the silly decision they made that resulted in the company divesting itself of businesses that had a future. The point is you can miscalculate a bit when it comes to how rapid you core tech will become useless but your planning should recognize that is going to happen and that you need to grow in a different direction. Instead Kodak shrunk itself down around a dying business.
.
Exactly, for those folks who think Kodak was just a film company you're totally off base. They had the diversity but not the vision to adjust to the transition and ended up wholesale auctioning their future. Kinda what we're doing as a country right now.
GrannySmith_G5
Sep 25, 10:59 AM
Looks like they lowered the graphic card requirements, making it usable on my machines. Yay.
more...
Earendil
Oct 10, 10:01 AM
Who rates this negative?
Unless I misread the report, basically all Target did was remind the studios that the DVD format is in jeopardy and they better get with the times or Target will. And if studios need Target and Wal-Mart to tell them that, they're in more trouble than I ever thought.
My understanding was different. I take it that they are taking the same stance that Wal-Mart is, and that is that if the movie industry allows iTunes to sell movies, they will make the record companies pay for it (in a negative way). The retailers aren't ready to take on iTunes and the online market, so they are going to use their power to stall the transition to digital downloads as long as they possibly can.
What Target is doing is anti Apple, and more importantly, anti the progression of technology and lifestyle.
Unless I misread the report, basically all Target did was remind the studios that the DVD format is in jeopardy and they better get with the times or Target will. And if studios need Target and Wal-Mart to tell them that, they're in more trouble than I ever thought.
My understanding was different. I take it that they are taking the same stance that Wal-Mart is, and that is that if the movie industry allows iTunes to sell movies, they will make the record companies pay for it (in a negative way). The retailers aren't ready to take on iTunes and the online market, so they are going to use their power to stall the transition to digital downloads as long as they possibly can.
What Target is doing is anti Apple, and more importantly, anti the progression of technology and lifestyle.
chrono1081
Mar 17, 07:51 PM
In response to all the "Recommend Me a Camera/Lens/Editor etc" threads, I offer this. Comments or additions?
Never Show Your Work To Anyone
Read Only "Expert Photographer" Blogs, Articles, and Books
Leave Your Camera On Auto...:eek:...
Buy A New and More Expensive Camera Because It'll Make Better Pictures
Spend Too Much Time Mastering Photoshop
Mine is this: Fixate on one style of photography or subject.
Original stolen from PIXIQ... (http://www.pixiq.com/article/how-to-work-hard-at-photography-and-still-suck)
Dale
The one in bold is what I see the most. I've done photography for years and see new people get into the game and worry about the wrong things. Photoshop being one of them. Photoshop shouldn't even come to someones mind.
Learn the camera, learn composition, learn lighting, learn photographic techniques to get what you want such as second curtain sync, hyperfocal distancing, etc. Once you can get it done right in camera then you can take it to the next level in photoshop (skin smoothing, removing hair wisps, correcting lens distortion, etc.).
Too many people want to be a pro right out of the gate, they buy photoshop, get a NAPP membership, a fancy computer (that is 99% of the time overkill), raid storage when they've only shot 500 pictures, etc but never bother to learn the fundamentals.
I'm all for learning on Digital, I think it helps someone learn better, but focus on learning the most important and fundamental things first, then learn about the post processing. A picture can still look fantastic without running it through photoshop.
Never Show Your Work To Anyone
Read Only "Expert Photographer" Blogs, Articles, and Books
Leave Your Camera On Auto...:eek:...
Buy A New and More Expensive Camera Because It'll Make Better Pictures
Spend Too Much Time Mastering Photoshop
Mine is this: Fixate on one style of photography or subject.
Original stolen from PIXIQ... (http://www.pixiq.com/article/how-to-work-hard-at-photography-and-still-suck)
Dale
The one in bold is what I see the most. I've done photography for years and see new people get into the game and worry about the wrong things. Photoshop being one of them. Photoshop shouldn't even come to someones mind.
Learn the camera, learn composition, learn lighting, learn photographic techniques to get what you want such as second curtain sync, hyperfocal distancing, etc. Once you can get it done right in camera then you can take it to the next level in photoshop (skin smoothing, removing hair wisps, correcting lens distortion, etc.).
Too many people want to be a pro right out of the gate, they buy photoshop, get a NAPP membership, a fancy computer (that is 99% of the time overkill), raid storage when they've only shot 500 pictures, etc but never bother to learn the fundamentals.
I'm all for learning on Digital, I think it helps someone learn better, but focus on learning the most important and fundamental things first, then learn about the post processing. A picture can still look fantastic without running it through photoshop.
coder12
Apr 6, 11:11 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
Really cant wait when the iPad will have serious processing power :).
It already has some serious processing power ;) It has the quad core i9 processor by schmintel with the new amd gfx99999 graphics chip for unquantative speeds that break the light barrier!
Oh no wait, that would be the atomic bomb... ;)
Really cant wait when the iPad will have serious processing power :).
It already has some serious processing power ;) It has the quad core i9 processor by schmintel with the new amd gfx99999 graphics chip for unquantative speeds that break the light barrier!
Oh no wait, that would be the atomic bomb... ;)
sportsfan
Apr 19, 10:03 AM
Are they given a formal training by apple? Even if they are, every approvers view will be slightly different.....perhaps this app was one that should have been approved from the start but was rejected by an approver who likes to abuse power?
SPUY767
Nov 21, 09:47 PM
In the business world, you need to be able to make a good impression. If you have a flashy website and nothing behind it, you're going nowhere. If you have good substance but poor presentation of it, you can still succeed, but it can be a lot harder than if you've got it presented well.
Sitting down for an hour with GoLive would provide them with a much better front door to the world. Starting a tech company is hard, but it's easier if you excel in all areas of your business. And yes, publicity is one of those areas.
It's not that they didn't take the time, it's just that your website has to look like that if you're going to comply with Every W3C and CSS regulation. :D
Sitting down for an hour with GoLive would provide them with a much better front door to the world. Starting a tech company is hard, but it's easier if you excel in all areas of your business. And yes, publicity is one of those areas.
It's not that they didn't take the time, it's just that your website has to look like that if you're going to comply with Every W3C and CSS regulation. :D
madhatress
Mar 25, 06:20 AM
I haven't been able to find a SINGLE store that has the 16GB model. I've searched everywhere throughout the city and east bay. Anyways, all I've called have said the iPads are $299/$399/$499 with no contract.
Any 32GB left? If so where? At YYZ waiting to board my flight to SFO :)
Any 32GB left? If so where? At YYZ waiting to board my flight to SFO :)
joaoferro99
Apr 6, 03:07 AM
in general, how long does it take to apply a patent from US Patent and Trademark Office? I am just wondering why apple got the approval within such short period of time? paid premium fee?
scu
Oct 16, 07:17 PM
Apple smart phone with keyboard? I could definitely be talked into that.
Me too:D
Me too:D
No comments:
Post a Comment