craigatkinson
Jul 29, 10:42 PM
I beg to differ. I've even heard stock analysts anticipating the release of the iPhone. It's not a matter if Apple is going to release it, its a matter of when.
Nor, methinks this iPhone shall ever happen. What would Apple gain in becoming a cell phone provider? Its a nasty market with no concensus between camps.
Sorry, its vaporware.
Nor, methinks this iPhone shall ever happen. What would Apple gain in becoming a cell phone provider? Its a nasty market with no concensus between camps.
Sorry, its vaporware.
mfacey
Jul 30, 01:45 AM
What's with everybody thinking this will be too US centric? I'm guessing a possible music download service will be USA only at first, but in all honesty the European and Asian cell phone markets are about 3 years ahead of the US as far as technology goes. Chances are, Apple will make it a GSM technology phone, which is actually quite international!
Even so, the USA is in dire need of a decent cell phone. The fact that the Razr is so popular says it all. The Razr is a terrible phone (along with most other Motorolas for that matter). And the rest of the selection available is pretty sad too!
Personally I'm hoping for a smart phone of some sort, preferably with a full qwerty keyboard. But I'm not holding my breath.
Even so, the USA is in dire need of a decent cell phone. The fact that the Razr is so popular says it all. The Razr is a terrible phone (along with most other Motorolas for that matter). And the rest of the selection available is pretty sad too!
Personally I'm hoping for a smart phone of some sort, preferably with a full qwerty keyboard. But I'm not holding my breath.
slu
Aug 7, 01:55 PM
Perhaps for a PowerBook G5?
As far as I am concerned, it is the same sort of thing really.
As far as I am concerned, it is the same sort of thing really.
MikeTheC
Nov 25, 10:46 PM
All this talk about Palm needing to modernize their OS, or it is outdated, or needing to re-write is absolutely hilarious.
On a phone, I want to use its features quickly and easily. When I have to schedule an appointment, I want to enter that appointment as easily as possible. When I want to add something to my to-do list, I want to do it easily and quickly. And first and foremost, I want to be able to look up a contact and dial it as quickly as possible.
A phone is not a personal computer. I couldn't care less about multitasking, rewriting, "modern" OSes (whatever "modern" means). "Modern" features and look is just eye candy and/or toys. A mobile phone is a gadget of convenience, and it should be convenient to use. Even PalmOS 1.0 was convenient. It was just as easy to use its contact and calendar features as any so-called "modern" OS is today.
I would really like to know how "modernizing" the OS on my phone would help me look up contacts, dial contacts, enter to-do list entries, and entering calendar entries any better that I could today.
Again, I repeat: a phone is not a personal computer. There's no point in treating it as such.
The same point could largely be made about cars, but I don't think either of us would want to be driving a Model T or Model A Ford these days, would we?
The term "Modern" as applied to operating systems has little to do with the interface per se. It primarily concerns the underpinnings of the OS and how forward-looking and/or open-ended it is. Older operating systems, if you want to look at it in this way, were very geared to the hardware of their times, and every time you added a new hardware feature or some new kind of technology came out, you wound up making this big patchwork of an OS, in which you had either an out-dated or obsolete "core" around which was stuck, somewhat unglamorously, lots of crap to allow it to do stuff it wasn't really designed for. Then, you wound up having to write patches for the patches, etc., ad infinitum.
Apple tried to go the internal development route, but that didn't work because their departmental infrastructure was eating them from the inside out at the time and basically poisoned all of their new projects. They considered BeOS because it was an incredibly modern OS at the time that was very capable, unbelievably good at multitasking, memory protection, multimedia tasks, etc. However, that company was so shaky that when Apple decided not to go with them, they collapsed. One of the products which was introduced and sold and almost immediately recalled that used a version of BeOS was Sony's eVilla (you just have to love that name -- try pronouncing it out loud to get the full effect).
Ultimately, they went with NeXT's BSD- and Mach-Kernel-based NeXTStep (which after a bunch of time and effort and -- since lots of it is based on Open Source software, there were a healthy amount of community contributions to) and hence we now have Mac OS X.
I'll leave it to actual developers and/or coders here to better explain and refine (and/or correct) what I've said here, should you wish greater detail beyond what I am able to -- and therefore have -- provided above.
The whole point of going with a modern OS implemented for an imbedded market (i.e. "Mac OS X Mobile") is it gives you much more direct (and probably better implemented and/or better-grounded) access to modern technologies. Everything from basic I/O tasks that reside in the Kernel to audio processing to doing H.264 decoding to having access to IPv4 or IPv6, are all examples of things which a modern OS could do a better job of providing and/or backing.
From what I understand, PalmOS is something that was designed to first and foremost give you basic notepad and daily organizer functionality. When they wrote, as you say, PalmOS 1.0, they happened to implement a way for third parties to write software that could run on it. This has been both a benefit and a bane of PalmOS's existence. First off, they now have the same issues of backwards-compatibility and storage space and memory use/abuse that a regular computer OS has. I said it was both a benefit and a bane; but there's actually two parts to the "bane" side. The first I've already mentioned, but the second is the fact that since apps have been written which can do darn near any conceivable task, people keep wanting more and more and more. And this then goes back to the "patchwork" I described earlier in talking about "older" computer OSs.
Then people want multimedia, and color screens, and apps to take advantage of it, and they want Palm to incorporate DSPs so they can play music, and of course that brings along with it all of the extra patching to then allow for the existence of, and permit the use of, an on-board DSP. And now you want WiFi? Well, shoot, now we gotta have IPv4 as well, and support for TCP/IP, none of which was ever a part of the original concept of PalmOS.
And even if you don't want or need any of those features in your own PDA, I'm sorry but that's really just too bad. Go live in a cave if you like, but if you buy a new PDA, guess what: you're gonna get all that stuff.
And at some point, all of this stretches an "older" OS just a bit too far, or it becomes a bit absurd with all the hoops and turns and wiggling that PalmOne's coders have to go through, so then they say, "Aw **** it, let's just re-write the thing."
Apple comes to this without any of *that* sort of legacy. Doubtless there will be no Newton code on this thing anywhere, but what Apple's got is Mac OS X, which means they also have the power (albeit somewhat indirectly) of an Open Source OS -- Linux. And in case you weren't aware, there are already numerous "imbedded" implementations of Linux -- phones, PDAs, game systems, kiosks, etc. -- all of which are data points and collective experience opportunities which ALREADY EXIST that Apple can exploit.
So no, having a "modern" OS is not a bad thing. It's actually a supremely awesome thing. What you're concerned about is having something that is intuitive AND efficient AND appropriate to the world of telephone interfaces for the user interface on the device you'd go and buy yourself.
All I can say, based on past performance, is give Apple a chance.
Now, here's a larger picture thought to ponder...
If Apple goes to market with the iPhone, then this is going to open up (to some extent) the viability of a F/OSS community cell phone. And this is a really good thing as well because it represents a non-commercial, enthusiast entrance into what up until now has been a totally proprietary, locked-down OS-based product world. It has the potential to do to cell phones what Linux has inspired in Mac OS X.
On a phone, I want to use its features quickly and easily. When I have to schedule an appointment, I want to enter that appointment as easily as possible. When I want to add something to my to-do list, I want to do it easily and quickly. And first and foremost, I want to be able to look up a contact and dial it as quickly as possible.
A phone is not a personal computer. I couldn't care less about multitasking, rewriting, "modern" OSes (whatever "modern" means). "Modern" features and look is just eye candy and/or toys. A mobile phone is a gadget of convenience, and it should be convenient to use. Even PalmOS 1.0 was convenient. It was just as easy to use its contact and calendar features as any so-called "modern" OS is today.
I would really like to know how "modernizing" the OS on my phone would help me look up contacts, dial contacts, enter to-do list entries, and entering calendar entries any better that I could today.
Again, I repeat: a phone is not a personal computer. There's no point in treating it as such.
The same point could largely be made about cars, but I don't think either of us would want to be driving a Model T or Model A Ford these days, would we?
The term "Modern" as applied to operating systems has little to do with the interface per se. It primarily concerns the underpinnings of the OS and how forward-looking and/or open-ended it is. Older operating systems, if you want to look at it in this way, were very geared to the hardware of their times, and every time you added a new hardware feature or some new kind of technology came out, you wound up making this big patchwork of an OS, in which you had either an out-dated or obsolete "core" around which was stuck, somewhat unglamorously, lots of crap to allow it to do stuff it wasn't really designed for. Then, you wound up having to write patches for the patches, etc., ad infinitum.
Apple tried to go the internal development route, but that didn't work because their departmental infrastructure was eating them from the inside out at the time and basically poisoned all of their new projects. They considered BeOS because it was an incredibly modern OS at the time that was very capable, unbelievably good at multitasking, memory protection, multimedia tasks, etc. However, that company was so shaky that when Apple decided not to go with them, they collapsed. One of the products which was introduced and sold and almost immediately recalled that used a version of BeOS was Sony's eVilla (you just have to love that name -- try pronouncing it out loud to get the full effect).
Ultimately, they went with NeXT's BSD- and Mach-Kernel-based NeXTStep (which after a bunch of time and effort and -- since lots of it is based on Open Source software, there were a healthy amount of community contributions to) and hence we now have Mac OS X.
I'll leave it to actual developers and/or coders here to better explain and refine (and/or correct) what I've said here, should you wish greater detail beyond what I am able to -- and therefore have -- provided above.
The whole point of going with a modern OS implemented for an imbedded market (i.e. "Mac OS X Mobile") is it gives you much more direct (and probably better implemented and/or better-grounded) access to modern technologies. Everything from basic I/O tasks that reside in the Kernel to audio processing to doing H.264 decoding to having access to IPv4 or IPv6, are all examples of things which a modern OS could do a better job of providing and/or backing.
From what I understand, PalmOS is something that was designed to first and foremost give you basic notepad and daily organizer functionality. When they wrote, as you say, PalmOS 1.0, they happened to implement a way for third parties to write software that could run on it. This has been both a benefit and a bane of PalmOS's existence. First off, they now have the same issues of backwards-compatibility and storage space and memory use/abuse that a regular computer OS has. I said it was both a benefit and a bane; but there's actually two parts to the "bane" side. The first I've already mentioned, but the second is the fact that since apps have been written which can do darn near any conceivable task, people keep wanting more and more and more. And this then goes back to the "patchwork" I described earlier in talking about "older" computer OSs.
Then people want multimedia, and color screens, and apps to take advantage of it, and they want Palm to incorporate DSPs so they can play music, and of course that brings along with it all of the extra patching to then allow for the existence of, and permit the use of, an on-board DSP. And now you want WiFi? Well, shoot, now we gotta have IPv4 as well, and support for TCP/IP, none of which was ever a part of the original concept of PalmOS.
And even if you don't want or need any of those features in your own PDA, I'm sorry but that's really just too bad. Go live in a cave if you like, but if you buy a new PDA, guess what: you're gonna get all that stuff.
And at some point, all of this stretches an "older" OS just a bit too far, or it becomes a bit absurd with all the hoops and turns and wiggling that PalmOne's coders have to go through, so then they say, "Aw **** it, let's just re-write the thing."
Apple comes to this without any of *that* sort of legacy. Doubtless there will be no Newton code on this thing anywhere, but what Apple's got is Mac OS X, which means they also have the power (albeit somewhat indirectly) of an Open Source OS -- Linux. And in case you weren't aware, there are already numerous "imbedded" implementations of Linux -- phones, PDAs, game systems, kiosks, etc. -- all of which are data points and collective experience opportunities which ALREADY EXIST that Apple can exploit.
So no, having a "modern" OS is not a bad thing. It's actually a supremely awesome thing. What you're concerned about is having something that is intuitive AND efficient AND appropriate to the world of telephone interfaces for the user interface on the device you'd go and buy yourself.
All I can say, based on past performance, is give Apple a chance.
Now, here's a larger picture thought to ponder...
If Apple goes to market with the iPhone, then this is going to open up (to some extent) the viability of a F/OSS community cell phone. And this is a really good thing as well because it represents a non-commercial, enthusiast entrance into what up until now has been a totally proprietary, locked-down OS-based product world. It has the potential to do to cell phones what Linux has inspired in Mac OS X.
johnnyturbouk
Apr 10, 08:33 AM
48.
New York City (Group)
A LITTLE MORE NEW YORK IN
Keith Richards, New York, NY
New York Subway Platform
PAINTING middot; TWIN TOWERS
Stardust Diner, New York City,
New york city at night lack
#39;New York, NY#39; c.1942
Black and White Photo of
New York City In Black and
What#39;s lack and white and
Black and white (wedding
is a lack and white group
Photos new york city black and
jclardy
Mar 28, 11:33 AM
Maybe they are going to start releasing all iOS hardware updates in September?
It is closer to the holidays which would be good for sales of those new products, but at the same time launching 2-3 new products in one month would be a waste of the massive amounts of publicity each launch gets. (Except maybe the iPod touch which usually isn't very much)
I don't think they will launch iPad 3 in September either just because the demand for iPad 2 will still be high, and probably elevated with the launch of iOS 5.
Announcing iPhone 5 at WWDC when it doesn't launch until September would probably hurt iPhone 4 sales up to that point.
It is closer to the holidays which would be good for sales of those new products, but at the same time launching 2-3 new products in one month would be a waste of the massive amounts of publicity each launch gets. (Except maybe the iPod touch which usually isn't very much)
I don't think they will launch iPad 3 in September either just because the demand for iPad 2 will still be high, and probably elevated with the launch of iOS 5.
Announcing iPhone 5 at WWDC when it doesn't launch until September would probably hurt iPhone 4 sales up to that point.
mmomega
May 4, 02:58 PM
That's great that it installs a partition.
So my warranty is out and I want to install a brand new SSD.
I've upgraded only about a dozen friends' MacBooks to SSD and w/o the grey disc that came with the computer you're screwed. Retail copy won't work.
again, I'm completely fine with having any app in the world as download only. Great, it's faster.
Some never do a full reinstall, that's the majority, but you do still have those that work on these machines and some times you need the physical media.
So my warranty is out and I want to install a brand new SSD.
I've upgraded only about a dozen friends' MacBooks to SSD and w/o the grey disc that came with the computer you're screwed. Retail copy won't work.
again, I'm completely fine with having any app in the world as download only. Great, it's faster.
Some never do a full reinstall, that's the majority, but you do still have those that work on these machines and some times you need the physical media.
CalBoy
Apr 10, 06:42 PM
Didn't all your methods, whatever they are called, give a priority to do the parenthesis operation first?
It is not my assumption, it is the method/explanation given by others.
My initial answer is and will always be 2.
My Mac can't be wrong.
Mac OS X can't be wrong.
Not here.
A Mac in MacRumors can't fail.:eek:
On the other hand Wolfram Alpha came up with 288, and so did Google.
This all comes down to how you read the "/" If you assume it's a fraction bar, you get 2. If you assume it's a division sign, you get 288. When it's not clear what it's meant to be, division is the standard interpretation because even when "/"is used in fractions, it is essentially acting like a division sign. If you want to express a giant fraction, just use the right amount of parentheses.
It is not my assumption, it is the method/explanation given by others.
My initial answer is and will always be 2.
My Mac can't be wrong.
Mac OS X can't be wrong.
Not here.
A Mac in MacRumors can't fail.:eek:
On the other hand Wolfram Alpha came up with 288, and so did Google.
This all comes down to how you read the "/" If you assume it's a fraction bar, you get 2. If you assume it's a division sign, you get 288. When it's not clear what it's meant to be, division is the standard interpretation because even when "/"is used in fractions, it is essentially acting like a division sign. If you want to express a giant fraction, just use the right amount of parentheses.
shaolindave
May 4, 04:37 PM
Many people have already said in this thread that you can already easily move an app from one machine to another. You just need to log in with your iTunes/App Store account.
however, nobody has said in this thread how to log in with your iTunes/App Store account on a machine that doesn't have an OS, and I have a feeling I'll need to do that at least once.
however, nobody has said in this thread how to log in with your iTunes/App Store account on a machine that doesn't have an OS, and I have a feeling I'll need to do that at least once.
product26
Apr 26, 02:31 PM
:P
Sent from my Nexus One
Sent from my Nexus One
quigleybc
Sep 11, 11:53 AM
The only things comin out are the Video Rental service, and a size increase for the Nano.
Move along.
Move along.
Multimedia
Aug 7, 06:36 PM
Just ordered with the X1900 upgrade, memory upgrade, and Bluetooth. Says three to five weeks to ship.
If I check the order status twice a day, will that make my system ship faster? :)Two 1 GB Sticks are only $386 from Third Parties. (http://www.wiredzone.com/itemdesc.asp?ic=32003196&source=froogle)
2x1 = 2GB = $386 vs Apples 4x 512 NOT 6x 512 = + $386 Plus the One GB from Apple for total of 3GB.
4x1 = 4GB = $772 vs. Apple's $990 Plus the One GB you get base from Apple for total of 5GB.
I think you really should change your order to base ram and add TWO 1GB sticks for only $386 for a total of 3GB to begin with for only $116 more than the cost of TWO from Apple taking up only 4 slots. :)
When you buy 2 GB (4 x 512) from Apple you are paying Apple $270 for ONE GB (because you get ONE GB Base anyway) Instead of $193 per ONE GB from Third Parties plus the ONE it comes with no matter what.
$386 MINUS $270 = $116 for that first GB it comes with. See?
If I check the order status twice a day, will that make my system ship faster? :)Two 1 GB Sticks are only $386 from Third Parties. (http://www.wiredzone.com/itemdesc.asp?ic=32003196&source=froogle)
2x1 = 2GB = $386 vs Apples 4x 512 NOT 6x 512 = + $386 Plus the One GB from Apple for total of 3GB.
4x1 = 4GB = $772 vs. Apple's $990 Plus the One GB you get base from Apple for total of 5GB.
I think you really should change your order to base ram and add TWO 1GB sticks for only $386 for a total of 3GB to begin with for only $116 more than the cost of TWO from Apple taking up only 4 slots. :)
When you buy 2 GB (4 x 512) from Apple you are paying Apple $270 for ONE GB (because you get ONE GB Base anyway) Instead of $193 per ONE GB from Third Parties plus the ONE it comes with no matter what.
$386 MINUS $270 = $116 for that first GB it comes with. See?
snberk103
May 4, 05:33 PM
"If you have a stick that is 3' 7 13/16" and need to divide it into 3 equal sections, ... -I'd use a calculator in either example, so it's a moot point.
So what is a third of 13/16th of an inch? :)
I've never seen a tank meant for holding liquid that wasn't rated in gallons - and I'm talking about up to 5 million gallons. But still, I'd be using a calculator in either event. But to illustrate my earlier point, 1 cubic yard = 27 cubic feet, 1 cubic foot = 7.48 gallons. Simple math.
See attached image.... more flow stuff than storage stuff, but it makes the head boggle. And yes, of course you'd use a calculator to be sure - but if you could approximate it in your head, at least you'd have a sense of whether you were correct or not.
Seriously snberk103. Let us Americans use what we want. We find the imperial easier than the scientific metric.
'scuze moi!
Tomorrow put up a good point, we can use conversion factors too. ;)
This may be a reason why American kids are falling behind in global math competencies. It would be interesting to track which countries surged on math competencies, and when they switched to metric.
So, as a citizen of a country that competes with the USA in manufacturing.... please keep on being the only industrialized country that hasn't switched. Or at least has only partially switched since many exporting companies have switched. :D
So what is a third of 13/16th of an inch? :)
I've never seen a tank meant for holding liquid that wasn't rated in gallons - and I'm talking about up to 5 million gallons. But still, I'd be using a calculator in either event. But to illustrate my earlier point, 1 cubic yard = 27 cubic feet, 1 cubic foot = 7.48 gallons. Simple math.
See attached image.... more flow stuff than storage stuff, but it makes the head boggle. And yes, of course you'd use a calculator to be sure - but if you could approximate it in your head, at least you'd have a sense of whether you were correct or not.
Seriously snberk103. Let us Americans use what we want. We find the imperial easier than the scientific metric.
'scuze moi!
Tomorrow put up a good point, we can use conversion factors too. ;)
This may be a reason why American kids are falling behind in global math competencies. It would be interesting to track which countries surged on math competencies, and when they switched to metric.
So, as a citizen of a country that competes with the USA in manufacturing.... please keep on being the only industrialized country that hasn't switched. Or at least has only partially switched since many exporting companies have switched. :D
Nuvi
Nov 6, 04:36 PM
OK so for the slower people why would you separate the GPS unit and mount when it is being used on a day to day basis? The TomTom mounts are so slim and there is no other use for the unit so there is no point to separate the two for storage. The iPhone is mainly a phone and i would need to separate the two on a regular basis.
The entry level TomTom units have the slim dock but the more advance ones have the bulky active dock / or non active but still bulky ;) (5x0 - 9x0 series). There is no way you would want to carry around the more advanced units attached to the dock but if you can just leave the dock sticking on your windshield then this is not a problem.
Anyway, iPhone has one undeniable advantage over the stand alone units and thats the ability to choose the software. However, the screen on iPhone is small and the features will probably never be par with high end stand alone units.
The entry level TomTom units have the slim dock but the more advance ones have the bulky active dock / or non active but still bulky ;) (5x0 - 9x0 series). There is no way you would want to carry around the more advanced units attached to the dock but if you can just leave the dock sticking on your windshield then this is not a problem.
Anyway, iPhone has one undeniable advantage over the stand alone units and thats the ability to choose the software. However, the screen on iPhone is small and the features will probably never be par with high end stand alone units.
Worf
Mar 27, 12:33 AM
Well if one AOL owned tech blog can't get rumors right (Engadget), I'm not believing the other way less popular one (TechCrunch).
prady16
Sep 15, 05:24 PM
I am hoping for a new case design to keep the heat down!
Lets keep our fingers crossed!
Lets keep our fingers crossed!
milo
Sep 11, 11:05 AM
As for the movie store...I think I remember SJ in an interview awhile back saying, while he likes the purchase model for music, movies lend themselves to the subscription model because most people only watch a movie once or twice, Star Wars geeks notwithstanding. So I think the movie store is going to be like a true movie store. If you want to buy a movie you can, but the emphasis will be more on a NetFlix type model. A $15/mo sub gets you 3 movies at a time, unlimited d/ls per mo. Alternatively, you could rent a single movie for $4, viewable for a week or so. For people who don't have time to convert a DVD to an iPod viewable format that makes sense. Buying for $15 or $10 isn't going to excite anyone I don't think.
I doubt a download service would be able to offer unlimited movie downloads, at least not for a price next to netflix. Netflix "unlimited" movies really aren't because they are limited by the speed of the post office (and artificially limited even more by Netflix if you watch too many).
I doubt a download service would be able to offer unlimited movie downloads, at least not for a price next to netflix. Netflix "unlimited" movies really aren't because they are limited by the speed of the post office (and artificially limited even more by Netflix if you watch too many).
teme
Aug 7, 03:45 PM
2. What applications do you need that a Mac Mini Core Duo can't handle? Oh, games? Why in the sweet baby Jesus' name are you on MACrumors if you're a gamer? Apple cedes your kind to Dellienware. Go. Shoo. Leave the grownups alone.
Here's other point of view: I want to use OSX in everyday use (Safari, Mail, iTunes, graphic design, Dreamweaver etc... and OSX overall). But sometimes I want to play games too, and it's awesome that nowadays it's possible to boot into Windows and play games there and then boot back into OSX. Are you saying that Apple should totally forget all users who would like to use OSX but occasionally play games on Windows, and let them buy PCs? Most of the gamers do not use their computer ONLY to play games. Consumer tower would be good for Apple to get new switchers and get more marketshare.
Here's other point of view: I want to use OSX in everyday use (Safari, Mail, iTunes, graphic design, Dreamweaver etc... and OSX overall). But sometimes I want to play games too, and it's awesome that nowadays it's possible to boot into Windows and play games there and then boot back into OSX. Are you saying that Apple should totally forget all users who would like to use OSX but occasionally play games on Windows, and let them buy PCs? Most of the gamers do not use their computer ONLY to play games. Consumer tower would be good for Apple to get new switchers and get more marketshare.
emotion
Nov 22, 05:56 AM
I think T-Mobile might fit this bill, at least in the US. I remember seeing a story here earlier in the year where T-Mobile said its vision was aligned with Apple (but not necessarily a partnership; abc article here (http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/ZDM/story?id=2537247)).
Interesting reading that abc article and fits with my impression of T-Mobile in the UK too.
I'm definitely not signing up for a new phone yet! :)
Interesting reading that abc article and fits with my impression of T-Mobile in the UK too.
I'm definitely not signing up for a new phone yet! :)
opeter
May 6, 03:14 AM
this stupid rumor is stupid
No, it is not. Why do you think, MS is making an ARM version of Windows 8? Because ARM is gona be the actual feature x68 enemy. Time will tell.
No, it is not. Why do you think, MS is making an ARM version of Windows 8? Because ARM is gona be the actual feature x68 enemy. Time will tell.
oldwatery
Apr 5, 02:48 PM
Every time something like this goes down I'm reminded of the original 1984 Apple ad campaign.
Oh how things have changed.
Apple is now BIG BROTHER with a vengeance.
Bloody lame :mad:
With all our dumb laws there really should be a law that precludes bullies like Apple from using these strong arm tactics.
Apple really have got way too big for their boots.
Oh how things have changed.
Apple is now BIG BROTHER with a vengeance.
Bloody lame :mad:
With all our dumb laws there really should be a law that precludes bullies like Apple from using these strong arm tactics.
Apple really have got way too big for their boots.
Small White Car
May 4, 02:47 PM
Putting it on the Mac App Store raises an interesting issue about licencing - they said that purchases could be used on any Mac that you use.
That opens them up to a lot of abuse.
How so?
The current method is "the OS DVD you buy can be used anywhere, as often as you like, forever."
How could it be worse than that?
That opens them up to a lot of abuse.
How so?
The current method is "the OS DVD you buy can be used anywhere, as often as you like, forever."
How could it be worse than that?
SmackaMac
Mar 28, 10:40 AM
Surely this just means the iPhone released in June will simply be like the iPhone 3G to 3GS transition. Same form factor, upgraded internals, etc� Hard to imagine there won't be an iPhone with an A5 this year.
Ding Ding Ding....We Have a Winner!!!
Those individuals quoted in the article aren't seeing new pieces produced for the iphone 5 because the form factor will likely be the same as the current phone. I would expect a speed bump with the implementation of the A5 chip.
Ding Ding Ding....We Have a Winner!!!
Those individuals quoted in the article aren't seeing new pieces produced for the iphone 5 because the form factor will likely be the same as the current phone. I would expect a speed bump with the implementation of the A5 chip.
Stridder44
Apr 21, 03:57 PM
Awesome. Just awesome. :D Can't wait to see what these things look like.