~Shard~
Jul 14, 03:57 PM
Since apple is part of the Blu Ray consortium wouldn't you think they will use blu ray only?
No, actually. Apple technically supports HD-DVD as well, since are a member of the DVD Forum, which backs HD-DVD. :cool:
No, actually. Apple technically supports HD-DVD as well, since are a member of the DVD Forum, which backs HD-DVD. :cool:
boncellis
Aug 11, 01:43 PM
There's something fishy about this "story." The premise just seems unlikely.
That said, I think Apple will end up doing something about the gradual encroachment of their market share by mobile phone manufacturers. There are some qualifiers, however:
* It can't cannibalize iPod sales, which means either the "iPhone" will somehow be limited, or the iPod will see new features separating the two.
* It will have to be more than just a mobile phone with iTunes, integrating essential smartphone functions and something else that makes it stand out (maybe VoIP capability).
These are pretty obvious when you think about it, and I'm sure Apple has been thinking about it for some time. An Apple mobile phone could be imminent, you can sometimes tell by looking around the industry and spotting the "preemptive" or anticipatory products from competitors. It's not an accident that the LG "chocolate" phone looks a lot like the iPod Nano, in my opinion.
That said, I think Apple will end up doing something about the gradual encroachment of their market share by mobile phone manufacturers. There are some qualifiers, however:
* It can't cannibalize iPod sales, which means either the "iPhone" will somehow be limited, or the iPod will see new features separating the two.
* It will have to be more than just a mobile phone with iTunes, integrating essential smartphone functions and something else that makes it stand out (maybe VoIP capability).
These are pretty obvious when you think about it, and I'm sure Apple has been thinking about it for some time. An Apple mobile phone could be imminent, you can sometimes tell by looking around the industry and spotting the "preemptive" or anticipatory products from competitors. It's not an accident that the LG "chocolate" phone looks a lot like the iPod Nano, in my opinion.
blesscheese
Mar 26, 09:16 AM
Wait until the first revision comes up! as always, the desperates install the new OS that come full of bugs and then complains starts "I lost all my data".
Just my 2cents.
Not to mention that this sort of upgrades just make you buying a new machine to run the system as it should.
I agree...btw, before they release the new OS, shouldn't they fix the flaws in the old one first? Oh well, no chance of that now, "the new OS is far better than the old one..." (shades of M$ hyping Windows 95 as "the best ever," and then to market Win98, talking about how crappy Win95 was).
Is it me, or has Snow Leopard felt more like a marketing tool to get Apple's hands more fully into my wallet? The 10.6.6 update just to put the App Store icon in my dock was a bit over the top.
Just my 2cents.
Not to mention that this sort of upgrades just make you buying a new machine to run the system as it should.
I agree...btw, before they release the new OS, shouldn't they fix the flaws in the old one first? Oh well, no chance of that now, "the new OS is far better than the old one..." (shades of M$ hyping Windows 95 as "the best ever," and then to market Win98, talking about how crappy Win95 was).
Is it me, or has Snow Leopard felt more like a marketing tool to get Apple's hands more fully into my wallet? The 10.6.6 update just to put the App Store icon in my dock was a bit over the top.
mikewilder23
Jun 21, 03:43 AM
well looking forward for its launching...:)
Bill McEnaney
Mar 3, 10:05 AM
And I don't see the point in being sexually attracted to anyone of the opposite sex, but since society tells me it's "normal" I live with it nonetheless. It's all a matter of perception and experience. You have yours, I have mine and they're both normal to us.
Sure, different people have different experiences. That's partly why some people feel same-sex attractions and why others feel opposite-sex attractions. Macaroony doesn't see any point in opposite-sex attractions. I don't see any point in same-sex attractions. Here are two videos that explain what I believe about why some people feel same-sex attractions. I think the speaker works for NARTH.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFAJXvxcGrk&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UziWSdC8Zhw&feature=related
Pedophilia is immoral - no matter man or woman. Please do not put both homosexuality and pedophilia into the same boat. There are plenty of grown men who abuse underage girls, it's when they happen to be gay that elevates the problem and lazily ties it to homosexuality.
Just as no one chooses to feel same-sex attractions, no one chooses to be a pedophile. I know some pedophiles. But some pedophiles do choose to molest children. I don't want to conflate pedophilia and immoral actions that some pedophiles do because they're pedophiles.
Many people ignore the difference between homosexuality and homosexual acts. Many Christians insist that homosexuality is immoral. But homosexuality is a property, not an action. Nor is it a sin of omission. Homosexuality the property is morally indifferent. Homosexual acts are, I think, immoral. An action can be immoral, even if someone doesn't deserve any blame for doing it.
No, I shouldn't put homosexuality and pedophilia in the same boat. I mentioned the Catholic Church's homosexual-abuse because skunk seems to think my opinions about sexual morality are feelings, not beliefs that are either true or false. Even psychotherapists I've talked with have agreed that feelings are neither truths nor falsehoods. Feelings are neither of those, but there are truths about feelings and there are falsehoods about them. If I only feel that homosexual acts are immoral, should some government outlaw feeling that way?
The phrase "a fact" is ambiguous. It can mean "a truth." It can also mean "a set of actual set of circumstances." There are truths about feelings, and there are feelings about truths. But my feelings aren't truths. Even if moral relativism is true, there are still objective truths about whether some society or other considers some action morally acceptable. And some relativists still hold a self-inconsistent belief when they believe that since every belief is relative to some context or other, there's no such thing as absolute truth. In one sense of the phrase "absolute truth," a truth is absolute when it's true about every context. In that sense of the phrase "absolute truth," I imply a self-contradiction myself when I say that since every truth is relative to some context or other, I imply that it's an absolute truth that there's no absolute truth.
In another sense of the phrase "absolute truth," a truth is absolute when it's true whether anyone believes it or not. Even if I'm mistaken when I believe that homosexual sex is gravely immoral, it's still true that either they're moral or not moral.
Too often, people who feel same-sex attractions suffer needlessly partly because they, others, or both ignore important distinctions. Unfortunately, people often ignore them when their feelings determine too much of what those people believe.
Immoral behavior continues partly because of moral relativism. Instead of conforming our minds to reality, we try to conform reality to our minds. Moral relativists talk as though an action is moral if and only if someone believes that it's moral. Some moral relativists even insist that if you believe that homosexual acts are morally acceptable, and I believe they're immoral, then we're both right. A moral relativist might say the same about the morality or immorality of gay-bashing. But someone is right when he thinks that gay-bashing is morally right, should a court punish him for gay-bashing someone?
Sure, different people have different experiences. That's partly why some people feel same-sex attractions and why others feel opposite-sex attractions. Macaroony doesn't see any point in opposite-sex attractions. I don't see any point in same-sex attractions. Here are two videos that explain what I believe about why some people feel same-sex attractions. I think the speaker works for NARTH.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFAJXvxcGrk&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UziWSdC8Zhw&feature=related
Pedophilia is immoral - no matter man or woman. Please do not put both homosexuality and pedophilia into the same boat. There are plenty of grown men who abuse underage girls, it's when they happen to be gay that elevates the problem and lazily ties it to homosexuality.
Just as no one chooses to feel same-sex attractions, no one chooses to be a pedophile. I know some pedophiles. But some pedophiles do choose to molest children. I don't want to conflate pedophilia and immoral actions that some pedophiles do because they're pedophiles.
Many people ignore the difference between homosexuality and homosexual acts. Many Christians insist that homosexuality is immoral. But homosexuality is a property, not an action. Nor is it a sin of omission. Homosexuality the property is morally indifferent. Homosexual acts are, I think, immoral. An action can be immoral, even if someone doesn't deserve any blame for doing it.
No, I shouldn't put homosexuality and pedophilia in the same boat. I mentioned the Catholic Church's homosexual-abuse because skunk seems to think my opinions about sexual morality are feelings, not beliefs that are either true or false. Even psychotherapists I've talked with have agreed that feelings are neither truths nor falsehoods. Feelings are neither of those, but there are truths about feelings and there are falsehoods about them. If I only feel that homosexual acts are immoral, should some government outlaw feeling that way?
The phrase "a fact" is ambiguous. It can mean "a truth." It can also mean "a set of actual set of circumstances." There are truths about feelings, and there are feelings about truths. But my feelings aren't truths. Even if moral relativism is true, there are still objective truths about whether some society or other considers some action morally acceptable. And some relativists still hold a self-inconsistent belief when they believe that since every belief is relative to some context or other, there's no such thing as absolute truth. In one sense of the phrase "absolute truth," a truth is absolute when it's true about every context. In that sense of the phrase "absolute truth," I imply a self-contradiction myself when I say that since every truth is relative to some context or other, I imply that it's an absolute truth that there's no absolute truth.
In another sense of the phrase "absolute truth," a truth is absolute when it's true whether anyone believes it or not. Even if I'm mistaken when I believe that homosexual sex is gravely immoral, it's still true that either they're moral or not moral.
Too often, people who feel same-sex attractions suffer needlessly partly because they, others, or both ignore important distinctions. Unfortunately, people often ignore them when their feelings determine too much of what those people believe.
Immoral behavior continues partly because of moral relativism. Instead of conforming our minds to reality, we try to conform reality to our minds. Moral relativists talk as though an action is moral if and only if someone believes that it's moral. Some moral relativists even insist that if you believe that homosexual acts are morally acceptable, and I believe they're immoral, then we're both right. A moral relativist might say the same about the morality or immorality of gay-bashing. But someone is right when he thinks that gay-bashing is morally right, should a court punish him for gay-bashing someone?
sth
Apr 12, 02:24 PM
Any news about what time the presentation will be?
Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 11, 03:40 PM
So how many people in the world do you think have cell phones? Everyone?!?! Just doing a quick Google search, there were about 1.1billion cell users in the world in 2004. So, maybe it's up to 1.5 - 1.75bil now?
Now if there's ~700mil people in the EU with a workforce just under 400mil strong and internet usage is about 300mil. Ya, it would seem reasonable that roughly the same number of people use cell phones. Do you have a better estimate? I'm sure there's a lot of elderly, children, and poor in the 700mil that use cell phones, eh?
What about India, Japan, China? First of all, India and China have median incomes that are FAR less than the US or EU... so I doubt they have a relatively large cellular user base.
And oh, let me check with my cubemate.... yep, CDMA is used in parts of China.
Well, I dont know where to begin... I work in science and you have to trust me when I say that you can't deduct anything from the "facts" you have. You are guessing.
The fact is that GSM has 81% of the world market... and that makes cdma a small market.
Now if there's ~700mil people in the EU with a workforce just under 400mil strong and internet usage is about 300mil. Ya, it would seem reasonable that roughly the same number of people use cell phones. Do you have a better estimate? I'm sure there's a lot of elderly, children, and poor in the 700mil that use cell phones, eh?
What about India, Japan, China? First of all, India and China have median incomes that are FAR less than the US or EU... so I doubt they have a relatively large cellular user base.
And oh, let me check with my cubemate.... yep, CDMA is used in parts of China.
Well, I dont know where to begin... I work in science and you have to trust me when I say that you can't deduct anything from the "facts" you have. You are guessing.
The fact is that GSM has 81% of the world market... and that makes cdma a small market.
Reventon
Nov 24, 12:53 PM
Mine is installing right now too. The install process is rather long and tedious, but I can't wait to try out the Top Gear track first if I can. I wonder how many petrolheads are going to do that first? :D
Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 11, 03:32 PM
China, having bypassed installing a massive landline strucutre, now has enormous GSM network penetration.
India is also a HUGE GSM market.
Exactly my point. You cant use those numbers to show anything regarding cellphone shares...
India is also a HUGE GSM market.
Exactly my point. You cant use those numbers to show anything regarding cellphone shares...
ccrandall77
Aug 11, 03:31 PM
First, what makes you think the cellusage is similar to internet????? Mind blowing step here.
Secondly, Europa has 291 million internet users; North america US&Canada 227 milion; Rest of the world 500 million
Hence europe would be close to 30% of the total market???? What about india??? Japan??? china??? come on you cant say jack *** from this statistics
So how many people in the world do you think have cell phones? Everyone?!?! Just doing a quick Google search, there were about 1.1billion cell users in the world in 2004. So, maybe it's up to 1.5 - 1.75bil now?
Now if there's ~700mil people in the EU with a workforce just under 400mil strong and internet usage is about 300mil. Ya, it would seem reasonable that roughly the same number of people use cell phones. Do you have a better estimate? I'm sure there's a lot of elderly, children, and poor in the 700mil that use cell phones, eh?
What about India, Japan, China? First of all, India and China have median incomes that are FAR less than the US or EU... so I doubt they have a relatively large cellular user base.
And oh, let me check with my cubemate.... yep, CDMA is used in parts of China.
Secondly, Europa has 291 million internet users; North america US&Canada 227 milion; Rest of the world 500 million
Hence europe would be close to 30% of the total market???? What about india??? Japan??? china??? come on you cant say jack *** from this statistics
So how many people in the world do you think have cell phones? Everyone?!?! Just doing a quick Google search, there were about 1.1billion cell users in the world in 2004. So, maybe it's up to 1.5 - 1.75bil now?
Now if there's ~700mil people in the EU with a workforce just under 400mil strong and internet usage is about 300mil. Ya, it would seem reasonable that roughly the same number of people use cell phones. Do you have a better estimate? I'm sure there's a lot of elderly, children, and poor in the 700mil that use cell phones, eh?
What about India, Japan, China? First of all, India and China have median incomes that are FAR less than the US or EU... so I doubt they have a relatively large cellular user base.
And oh, let me check with my cubemate.... yep, CDMA is used in parts of China.
iKenny
Aug 7, 11:37 PM
Well I for one was kind of disappointed. Leopard is sort of Apple's chance to prove they can out-Vista Vista, and I'm not really sure what we saw today does it. I've been following Vista somewhat closely, and it really does catch Windows up to OS X in terms of features and prettiness.
I really think most of the features shown off today are already present in Windows (I've definitely heard about all of them before) or will be in Vista, and it's too bad Apple didn't have anything truly innovative to show us. Hopefully those secret features are something good...
The other thing that has me a little concerned is the huge amount of Vista-bashing that went on. I feel like if Leopard at this point were truly better than Vista, they'd be silent about Vista entirely and let the new system speak for itself. That would be really slick. That's not what happened however, and instead there was a lot of "look what Vista copied from us" and "check out how much better Leopard is." What I saw today, though, makes the former statement sound whiney and the latter sound foolish, since in my eyes, in terms of features, they're about on-par with each other.
I really hope Apple pulls it together. They've got to do this right, because come next year, most of the myriad reasons for switching to a Mac will be nullified by Vista.
BTW: whoever this "Platform Experience" guy is, get him off the stage and go back to Steve.
I really think most of the features shown off today are already present in Windows (I've definitely heard about all of them before) or will be in Vista, and it's too bad Apple didn't have anything truly innovative to show us. Hopefully those secret features are something good...
The other thing that has me a little concerned is the huge amount of Vista-bashing that went on. I feel like if Leopard at this point were truly better than Vista, they'd be silent about Vista entirely and let the new system speak for itself. That would be really slick. That's not what happened however, and instead there was a lot of "look what Vista copied from us" and "check out how much better Leopard is." What I saw today, though, makes the former statement sound whiney and the latter sound foolish, since in my eyes, in terms of features, they're about on-par with each other.
I really hope Apple pulls it together. They've got to do this right, because come next year, most of the myriad reasons for switching to a Mac will be nullified by Vista.
BTW: whoever this "Platform Experience" guy is, get him off the stage and go back to Steve.
Blue Velvet
Mar 23, 05:02 PM
We should either stay out of ALL interference, or else put on the damn star-spangled cape and superhero tights and get to business already. Wherever evil is, we must go and fight it! :rolleyes:
That's what it might look like from your shores. Fortunately, the world and life isn't so black and white.
Quite right. So far the whole Libya affair has a lot more in common with Desert Fox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Iraq_(December_1998)) than Iraq...
Operationally, perhaps. But politically, more in line with Bosnia, a civil war on Europe's borders involving genocide... with the added complications of Gaddafi's record, set in context of uprisings across the entire region.
It's much easier than actually addressing your real views... it's a defense mechanism which she uses to avoid serious debate.
Chuckle of the evening. Serious debate? You have no idea what debate is, endlessly unthinkingly recycling the same garbage that's so easily shot down from Heritage and other paid shills, thinking Fox News is a news organisation and Newt Gingrich is some kind of debating genius. Newt Gingrich, the idiot-savant, who only two weeks ago was urging the president:
Asked, �what would you do about Libya?� Gingrich responded:
Exercise a no-fly zone this evening. � We don�t need to have the United Nations. All we have to say is that we think that slaughtering your own citizens is unacceptable and that we�re intervening.
and now is saying:
call of duty 4 guns list.
Call of Duty 4 Weapons List
call of duty 4 guns list (104)
call of duty 4 guns list.
call of duty 4 guns list. call
Call of Duty 7 Weapons
call of duty 4 guns list. call
That's what it might look like from your shores. Fortunately, the world and life isn't so black and white.
Quite right. So far the whole Libya affair has a lot more in common with Desert Fox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Iraq_(December_1998)) than Iraq...
Operationally, perhaps. But politically, more in line with Bosnia, a civil war on Europe's borders involving genocide... with the added complications of Gaddafi's record, set in context of uprisings across the entire region.
It's much easier than actually addressing your real views... it's a defense mechanism which she uses to avoid serious debate.
Chuckle of the evening. Serious debate? You have no idea what debate is, endlessly unthinkingly recycling the same garbage that's so easily shot down from Heritage and other paid shills, thinking Fox News is a news organisation and Newt Gingrich is some kind of debating genius. Newt Gingrich, the idiot-savant, who only two weeks ago was urging the president:
Asked, �what would you do about Libya?� Gingrich responded:
Exercise a no-fly zone this evening. � We don�t need to have the United Nations. All we have to say is that we think that slaughtering your own citizens is unacceptable and that we�re intervening.
and now is saying:
robbyx
Apr 25, 04:11 PM
They owe us an explanation. We have a right to know what the device do and do not do.
You have a RIGHT? Really? And where does that RIGHT come from? The only right you have is the right to choose another product if you don't like something about the one you're using.
Stop whining. The phone doesn't even track you. As others have pointed out, the data is cell tower based, not GPS. The phone only logs the same kind of information your cell company already logs.
You have a RIGHT? Really? And where does that RIGHT come from? The only right you have is the right to choose another product if you don't like something about the one you're using.
Stop whining. The phone doesn't even track you. As others have pointed out, the data is cell tower based, not GPS. The phone only logs the same kind of information your cell company already logs.
shawnce
Jul 20, 11:56 AM
yes, its known as reverse hyper threading. AMD are working on it
http://www.dvhardware.net/article10901.html
Reverse hyperthreading? Um, no. (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060713-7263.html)
(also note that the article you link even notes that it was a "hoax")
http://www.dvhardware.net/article10901.html
Reverse hyperthreading? Um, no. (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060713-7263.html)
(also note that the article you link even notes that it was a "hoax")
gerrycurl
Jul 14, 05:59 PM
the question still remains--will the powermacs be able to use standard, off the shelf, pc video cards?
i know that you couldn't do so in the power architecture due to the bios irregularities. now that they're using efi, does this still mean we have to buy mac based cards? because that's really the question nobody seems to ask and nobody seems to have an answer for.
what this new mac workstation will mean is the chance to upgrade your macs based on commodity parts. no more mac tax for hardware. i remember when the radeon 9700 was king, the price was around $299 for pc version and $399 for mac version.
think about this, the ability to upgrade processor, video card, and sound card without having to pay the apple tax.
that's what it really comes down to. the speculative "good" version of the mac pro has a so-so video card, but it's not really worth the $600 more just to get a 1800, i'd rather just get the 1600 and upgrade on my own.
i know that you couldn't do so in the power architecture due to the bios irregularities. now that they're using efi, does this still mean we have to buy mac based cards? because that's really the question nobody seems to ask and nobody seems to have an answer for.
what this new mac workstation will mean is the chance to upgrade your macs based on commodity parts. no more mac tax for hardware. i remember when the radeon 9700 was king, the price was around $299 for pc version and $399 for mac version.
think about this, the ability to upgrade processor, video card, and sound card without having to pay the apple tax.
that's what it really comes down to. the speculative "good" version of the mac pro has a so-so video card, but it's not really worth the $600 more just to get a 1800, i'd rather just get the 1600 and upgrade on my own.
Bill McEnaney
Apr 29, 09:34 AM
Presumably because the sources are "too numerous to mention". Can't you read? :p
You'd expect the article to cite some studies when Fr. Martin's article says that those studies are too numerous to mention. And let's not forget the hint of potential bias I noticed when I read that the cited article's author was a "gay affirmative therapist." Have you guys read the undoubtedly objective reviews that Donald Trump's employees write about their boss's business savvy? :)
You'd expect the article to cite some studies when Fr. Martin's article says that those studies are too numerous to mention. And let's not forget the hint of potential bias I noticed when I read that the cited article's author was a "gay affirmative therapist." Have you guys read the undoubtedly objective reviews that Donald Trump's employees write about their boss's business savvy? :)
noire anqa
Mar 26, 07:28 AM
http://dissociatedpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/facebook-meh-button-500.png
Yet another unimpressive "major" update to an O/S that's showing it's age and irrelevance. (Hell it's already to most consumers nothing more than "That thing you gotta hook your iPad up to to make it work.) Compared to the iDevice world, the computer side of Apple has ground to a halt. Is it intentional I wonder...? ;)
Enough!! Combine MacOS and iOS already!!! The transition is so painfully slow, would someone else in tech get off their lazy ass and prod these guys to move a LITTLE quicker?!?
:rolleyes:
A clear and balanced argument ladies and gentlemen.
So cogently valid as to supersede the need for evidence.
Edit: Wait .. i just got the sarcasm .. damn!
Yet another unimpressive "major" update to an O/S that's showing it's age and irrelevance. (Hell it's already to most consumers nothing more than "That thing you gotta hook your iPad up to to make it work.) Compared to the iDevice world, the computer side of Apple has ground to a halt. Is it intentional I wonder...? ;)
Enough!! Combine MacOS and iOS already!!! The transition is so painfully slow, would someone else in tech get off their lazy ass and prod these guys to move a LITTLE quicker?!?
:rolleyes:
A clear and balanced argument ladies and gentlemen.
So cogently valid as to supersede the need for evidence.
Edit: Wait .. i just got the sarcasm .. damn!
ChazUK
Apr 6, 01:29 PM
It'll be 100,001 when it comes out in the UK when mine gets delivered..... Roll on Saturday!:D
Zimmy68
Apr 7, 11:36 PM
If there is one indisputable fact of this world...
Those on message boards that say they hate Best Buy, are the first to grab the Sunday ad and visit the store at least weekly.
Bank on it.
Those on message boards that say they hate Best Buy, are the first to grab the Sunday ad and visit the store at least weekly.
Bank on it.
mark28
Apr 20, 05:47 AM
Sure, but did Samsung patent it?
It's not about 'who copied who?', but 'who copied after who patented?'
All the corporations mentioned in this thread are dinosaurs and know what type of business they are in. If they fail to patent their (good) ideas than it's a given that someone else eventually will. Doesn't matter whether we or anyone thinks that's right or wrong. It's normal business practice. Any corporation thet develops products in a hot contested market like this and doesn't play this game will lose business or cash.
Samsung didn't stole it from Apple since they were first with the design, end of story.
Samsung can claim Apple stole their design and patent it. That's fraud right since it's not their own idea?
It's not about 'who copied who?', but 'who copied after who patented?'
All the corporations mentioned in this thread are dinosaurs and know what type of business they are in. If they fail to patent their (good) ideas than it's a given that someone else eventually will. Doesn't matter whether we or anyone thinks that's right or wrong. It's normal business practice. Any corporation thet develops products in a hot contested market like this and doesn't play this game will lose business or cash.
Samsung didn't stole it from Apple since they were first with the design, end of story.
Samsung can claim Apple stole their design and patent it. That's fraud right since it's not their own idea?
admanimal
Apr 11, 12:03 PM
Where are all these bs claims coming from? Why wouldn't Apple release it in June as always?
There are a number of factors that would make a later release make sense. They probably want to converge the Verizon and AT&T hardware, plus wait for iOS 5 to be ready. The release of Lion could also play a small part.
I think everyone making the (pretty much insane) comments that this spells the end of the iPhone's dominance should wait and see what iOS 5 looks like and how the iPhone 5 takes advantage of it.
There are a number of factors that would make a later release make sense. They probably want to converge the Verizon and AT&T hardware, plus wait for iOS 5 to be ready. The release of Lion could also play a small part.
I think everyone making the (pretty much insane) comments that this spells the end of the iPhone's dominance should wait and see what iOS 5 looks like and how the iPhone 5 takes advantage of it.
DocNo
Apr 11, 09:55 AM
FCUG could have said no to Apple, but why would they? It's not a Canon Group, it's a FCU Group...
Thank you!
Thank you!
Thunderhawks
Apr 25, 02:50 PM
Number 1: Apple is apparently labeling the reports as false
Number 2: Who even cares if Apple or Google or Microsoft or any corporation is tracking our location? What things are you involved in where you would even care? What harm could their knowledge of that information cause you? (apart from the crackpot theories of paranoid people)...
People will sue for anything these days and hopefully legislation will be passed soon to stop the ridiculousness.
Brings to mind:
If you outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have guns.
Seriously, communication between your device and cell towers etc. has been this way since the first cell phone.
It's similar to getting your phone bill showing you all the calls made.
You keep the bill, it's private info and only at the phone company.
Somebody steals it, different problem.
If Apple was still a small company nobody would have cared.
They are connecting themselves to Apple to get publicity.
BTW: I have been asked plenty of times by my iphone whether I want to allow location services. I click yes, as I have nothing to hide.
The criminals that this would actually be harmful to are using stolen cell phone etc.
Number 2: Who even cares if Apple or Google or Microsoft or any corporation is tracking our location? What things are you involved in where you would even care? What harm could their knowledge of that information cause you? (apart from the crackpot theories of paranoid people)...
People will sue for anything these days and hopefully legislation will be passed soon to stop the ridiculousness.
Brings to mind:
If you outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have guns.
Seriously, communication between your device and cell towers etc. has been this way since the first cell phone.
It's similar to getting your phone bill showing you all the calls made.
You keep the bill, it's private info and only at the phone company.
Somebody steals it, different problem.
If Apple was still a small company nobody would have cared.
They are connecting themselves to Apple to get publicity.
BTW: I have been asked plenty of times by my iphone whether I want to allow location services. I click yes, as I have nothing to hide.
The criminals that this would actually be harmful to are using stolen cell phone etc.
PolarIced
Apr 6, 10:09 AM
Has Intel R&D come up with a new, low-power, backlit keyboard? ;)
(Figured I'd throw that out straight off, as it's bound to come up somewhere along the line)
(Figured I'd throw that out straight off, as it's bound to come up somewhere along the line)
