brepublican
Jul 24, 02:44 PM
Kudos Apple! Long awaited, I bet they make it available right after WWDC
superericla
Apr 15, 03:26 PM
I'm getting much less ram usage and better battery life with this update as comparison to without.
Icaras
Apr 26, 12:33 PM
I don't know about other countries, but I've noticed so many people in America just expect almost everything to be free these days.
I mean, seriously? It's getting a little tiresome.
I mean, seriously? It's getting a little tiresome.
DakotaGuy
Apr 13, 07:52 PM
Why won't this rumor die?! Seriously. It makes MUCH more sense to make a set top box that is compatible with any tv, and thus have wider appeal and adoption than to make a TV that has to compete with every other TV manufacturer out there. This is not Apple's game. Their game it to look at a market that is not currently being exploited to its full extent, figure out what people may want, then come in and redefine that niche. Worked with the iPod, iPhone, and iPad. There were predecessor in each of these markets but Apple came in and completely dominated it because they redefined it and tied it into a (relatively) easy to use ecosystem. Ok, it a really easy to use ecosystem, just slow and bloated. :D
I agree this is a silly idea. Who in the world would want the Apple TV integrated into a TV? What happens when an updated Apple TV is released the next year? Toss out the TV and buy another? Most people going in and buying a new large screen HDTV are planning to keep it a lot longer then the peripherals attached to it. If some new device comes out, no problem, just plug it into your TV. The other thing is that the TV market is very a very mature and saturated market with some big well known brands behind it.
I suppose they could make the content device separate like the current Apple TV which can be attached with an HDMI cable. If they do that what is the point of an Apple branded TV which would likely be built by another company like Samsung, LG or Sharp? Styling and a logo with a higher price? Nonsense.
I agree this is a silly idea. Who in the world would want the Apple TV integrated into a TV? What happens when an updated Apple TV is released the next year? Toss out the TV and buy another? Most people going in and buying a new large screen HDTV are planning to keep it a lot longer then the peripherals attached to it. If some new device comes out, no problem, just plug it into your TV. The other thing is that the TV market is very a very mature and saturated market with some big well known brands behind it.
I suppose they could make the content device separate like the current Apple TV which can be attached with an HDMI cable. If they do that what is the point of an Apple branded TV which would likely be built by another company like Samsung, LG or Sharp? Styling and a logo with a higher price? Nonsense.
more...
twoodcc
Sep 26, 11:06 AM
well team macrumors.com has been passed again by another team. we are now ranked #58 for folding teams
AlligatorBloodz
Apr 14, 09:35 AM
Why would it be Apple TV and have the word "Mac" in it?
I think in lion you will be able to emulate iOS and play all of your apps on your Mac.
OT: My problem with the Mac OS is how redundant it is. In lion you will be able to access your applications from the dock, launchpad, and finder. I just don't get why you need both a launchpad and a dock. Plus in the dock you can just place your applications folder.
I think in lion you will be able to emulate iOS and play all of your apps on your Mac.
OT: My problem with the Mac OS is how redundant it is. In lion you will be able to access your applications from the dock, launchpad, and finder. I just don't get why you need both a launchpad and a dock. Plus in the dock you can just place your applications folder.
more...
rasmasyean
May 1, 10:42 PM
Looking forward to the movie version. ;)
Just keep up with Youtube for the loads of "indy" movies. ;)
Just keep up with Youtube for the loads of "indy" movies. ;)
jeff1977
Apr 12, 09:47 AM
No.
Simply because htcSensation is 1.2GHz dual core
and... and... iphone5 will have lesser RAM than htcSensation.
Also, Apple is closed and Google is open.
okthxbai
Just buy what you like, but being all anal about specs is lame. Having the currently superior specs isn't gonna make anyone's penis any bigger, despite what you may think.
Simply because htcSensation is 1.2GHz dual core
and... and... iphone5 will have lesser RAM than htcSensation.
Also, Apple is closed and Google is open.
okthxbai
Just buy what you like, but being all anal about specs is lame. Having the currently superior specs isn't gonna make anyone's penis any bigger, despite what you may think.
more...
kalsta
Apr 14, 06:20 PM
Ok, I'll play along.
It's a BEATLES branded iPAD (like the U2 Branded iPod from years ago).
Number 9, number 9, number 9, number 9, number 9
I'm guessing, in that case, that it only comes in white. ;) (Only the real Beatles fans will get that one.)
It's a BEATLES branded iPAD (like the U2 Branded iPod from years ago).
Number 9, number 9, number 9, number 9, number 9
I'm guessing, in that case, that it only comes in white. ;) (Only the real Beatles fans will get that one.)
baryon
Apr 28, 05:38 PM
Maybe they had to make some stuff thicker to avoid light leaks? I mean we all know that light leaks were the cause of the delay, so it would make sense to make the paint thicker to solve the issue.
Apple doesn't care about case compatibility, as long as their own bumpers fit. If your case doesn't fit, that the case manufacturer's problem, and yours, not Apple's.
Apple doesn't care about case compatibility, as long as their own bumpers fit. If your case doesn't fit, that the case manufacturer's problem, and yours, not Apple's.
more...
FtrV8
Apr 22, 04:15 PM
Redesign that quick? But than again, a delay till September might be the reason. Who know, sure looks bad ass though.
einmusiker
Dec 31, 12:25 AM
No, I'm 100% right. Weight control is about calories. End of story. Calories in < Calories out and you lose weight. Opposite and you gain weight. There's no more or less here, that is the very basic premise. You want to discuss specifics that affect calories in/calories out, but that's flawed. Teach people the base first, and let them balance themselves out. You can very easily test your metabolic rate.
So you're saying these people have abnormally low "Calories out". It still comes down to that very simple equation. These people first have to fix their calories out, get their metabolism back straight, then they can fix their calories in.
It is that easy to lose weight. People don't know this very simple and basic concept, they think "Fat/Sugar" has to do with weight, which is completely false. "Low Saturated Fat!" on a box of cookies means squat if the cookies are 170 calories for 3 vs 180 calories for 3 of the same cookies with normal saturated fat. You still can't eat the whole box in one sitting and think "hey, it's low fat, I can't gain weight from this".
You'd be surprised how many people think this way.
People struggle because like someone pointed out, they lack willpower and I'll add that they lack education. Calorie control is the only way to lose weight. There's seriously no other way, since weight is based off of calories and calories alone. To lose weight, you need a calorie deficiency. To be more precise, 3500 calories = 1 lbs, each way. So you need to create a calorie deficiency of 3500 calories before you lose 1 lbs. My metabolic rate is around 1740, that's what I burn each day without lifting a finger. Add in my normal routine, and I'm around the magic 2000 calorie diet. Let's not add in my gym routine. So to lose 1 lbs in 7 days, I need to go on a 1500 calorie diet per day. That's going to give me a deficiency of 500 per day, times 7 days, 1 lbs lost.
There's entire industries because they profit from it. Some people like to buy "instant" solutions. 1 lbs in 7 days ? Bah humbug, too long, I have 100 to lose! There's no instant solutions to weight loss, quite the contrary, the entire weight loss industry makes money by keeping people fat and coming back for miracle cures. Their proposed plans of "1 shake/bar for breakfeast, same for lunch and a balanced diner" is awful. First, it should be the opposite, a good breakfeast and then their bars/shakes for lunch and diner. Breakfeast is where you get your day's energy. Second, that's not calorie control since it doesn't explain that it is trying to create a calorie deficit. So people just still overeat, they compensate the calories they didn't eat at breakfeast/lunch with a huge "balanced" diner.
I'm 32, work 35 hours per week in IT (sitting down on my ass), am on call with tons of pages coming in once every 2 weeks. I have a girlfriend, a mortgage and a dog.
Again, staying trim has nothing to do with having time or being busy or not. If you spend less calories, eat less calories. Balance your calories in to your calories out and you'll stay trim. Sure it means doing a bit more research into what you're eating, but that's not impossible. It also means listening to your body. Feeling "stuffed" means you overate. You should never feel full or stuffed. A donut is not faster to mow down than an Apple. It's not more filling either. It's tons more calories though.
You made an assumption about me and you were wrong. You should look at yourself and what you are or aren't doing that is making you fat, not make up excuses.
But again, it's just because you don't understand your caloric need for a day and you either overeat or eat just the right amount to maintain your weight. You don't even need to exercise to create a calorie deficiency. I think you're the perfect example of what I'm talking about, you don't understand the very basic concept, which has nothing to do with time spent, but rather food ingested.
People need to get it out of their heads that it is about exercise. It's 10% working out, 90% food. Get your nutrition right and you won't need to exercise a day in your life. If you want to get fit however, make sure to balance your nutrition around your added caloric need to not drop weight too fast or at all if your goal is maintaining.
ok, I'm sorry but how the hell do you know what I do or don't understand about nutrition?? your presumptions are offensive
So you're saying these people have abnormally low "Calories out". It still comes down to that very simple equation. These people first have to fix their calories out, get their metabolism back straight, then they can fix their calories in.
It is that easy to lose weight. People don't know this very simple and basic concept, they think "Fat/Sugar" has to do with weight, which is completely false. "Low Saturated Fat!" on a box of cookies means squat if the cookies are 170 calories for 3 vs 180 calories for 3 of the same cookies with normal saturated fat. You still can't eat the whole box in one sitting and think "hey, it's low fat, I can't gain weight from this".
You'd be surprised how many people think this way.
People struggle because like someone pointed out, they lack willpower and I'll add that they lack education. Calorie control is the only way to lose weight. There's seriously no other way, since weight is based off of calories and calories alone. To lose weight, you need a calorie deficiency. To be more precise, 3500 calories = 1 lbs, each way. So you need to create a calorie deficiency of 3500 calories before you lose 1 lbs. My metabolic rate is around 1740, that's what I burn each day without lifting a finger. Add in my normal routine, and I'm around the magic 2000 calorie diet. Let's not add in my gym routine. So to lose 1 lbs in 7 days, I need to go on a 1500 calorie diet per day. That's going to give me a deficiency of 500 per day, times 7 days, 1 lbs lost.
There's entire industries because they profit from it. Some people like to buy "instant" solutions. 1 lbs in 7 days ? Bah humbug, too long, I have 100 to lose! There's no instant solutions to weight loss, quite the contrary, the entire weight loss industry makes money by keeping people fat and coming back for miracle cures. Their proposed plans of "1 shake/bar for breakfeast, same for lunch and a balanced diner" is awful. First, it should be the opposite, a good breakfeast and then their bars/shakes for lunch and diner. Breakfeast is where you get your day's energy. Second, that's not calorie control since it doesn't explain that it is trying to create a calorie deficit. So people just still overeat, they compensate the calories they didn't eat at breakfeast/lunch with a huge "balanced" diner.
I'm 32, work 35 hours per week in IT (sitting down on my ass), am on call with tons of pages coming in once every 2 weeks. I have a girlfriend, a mortgage and a dog.
Again, staying trim has nothing to do with having time or being busy or not. If you spend less calories, eat less calories. Balance your calories in to your calories out and you'll stay trim. Sure it means doing a bit more research into what you're eating, but that's not impossible. It also means listening to your body. Feeling "stuffed" means you overate. You should never feel full or stuffed. A donut is not faster to mow down than an Apple. It's not more filling either. It's tons more calories though.
You made an assumption about me and you were wrong. You should look at yourself and what you are or aren't doing that is making you fat, not make up excuses.
But again, it's just because you don't understand your caloric need for a day and you either overeat or eat just the right amount to maintain your weight. You don't even need to exercise to create a calorie deficiency. I think you're the perfect example of what I'm talking about, you don't understand the very basic concept, which has nothing to do with time spent, but rather food ingested.
People need to get it out of their heads that it is about exercise. It's 10% working out, 90% food. Get your nutrition right and you won't need to exercise a day in your life. If you want to get fit however, make sure to balance your nutrition around your added caloric need to not drop weight too fast or at all if your goal is maintaining.
ok, I'm sorry but how the hell do you know what I do or don't understand about nutrition?? your presumptions are offensive
more...
arogge
Jun 6, 02:17 AM
This is like the risk of using the 1-Click Ordering feature at amazon.com.
twoodcc
Nov 29, 08:28 PM
I have my fingers crossed! one of them is connected to the power supply for another machine :eek: it seems to be working for now but I will have to get some bigger psu's soon. The one you are getting looks like a good deal.
oh ok. yeah i've heard of people doing that though. yeah, better get a bigger psu soon though
oh ok. yeah i've heard of people doing that though. yeah, better get a bigger psu soon though
more...
TallManNY
Apr 13, 03:14 PM
If true, it could be absolutely huge. Truly landmark. Imagine if Apple could somehow do the the TV industry what they did to nearly every other industry (segment) they're in?
The possibilities are pretty astounding. This is the Apple of folks. They have the money, drive, talent and momentum to get into any market and shake things up with a very good chance of success, and make the established players look totally flat-footed in the process.
No this isn't a good idea. What would Apple do with your TV that would be so neat? They can't make the picture any better than the TV manufacturers that they would have to buy the panels from. So what improvement would they make? How is your TV currently hard to use? Apple TV gets their iOS on the set for $100, so their software is already there. You just Airplay off of your iPhone onto the wi-fi receiver and, boom, you have control of the TV.
Also, look at Apple's recent successes. The iPod, iPhone, and iPad were not entries into mature markets. The iPhone was competing against smartphones and that isn't (and still isn't) a mature market. The iPod and iPad were of course still very new areas. TVs have been around for decades and I'm not even sure if you can say the switch to LCD screens was even that big an improvement from what we had 20 years ago. The profit has been squeezed out of this industry.
The possibilities are pretty astounding. This is the Apple of folks. They have the money, drive, talent and momentum to get into any market and shake things up with a very good chance of success, and make the established players look totally flat-footed in the process.
No this isn't a good idea. What would Apple do with your TV that would be so neat? They can't make the picture any better than the TV manufacturers that they would have to buy the panels from. So what improvement would they make? How is your TV currently hard to use? Apple TV gets their iOS on the set for $100, so their software is already there. You just Airplay off of your iPhone onto the wi-fi receiver and, boom, you have control of the TV.
Also, look at Apple's recent successes. The iPod, iPhone, and iPad were not entries into mature markets. The iPhone was competing against smartphones and that isn't (and still isn't) a mature market. The iPod and iPad were of course still very new areas. TVs have been around for decades and I'm not even sure if you can say the switch to LCD screens was even that big an improvement from what we had 20 years ago. The profit has been squeezed out of this industry.
ThaDoggg
Jan 28, 09:22 AM
yeah im behind the times.
Awesome game...too bad I don't have time to play it anymore.
Awesome game...too bad I don't have time to play it anymore.
more...
ten-oak-druid
Apr 29, 07:48 AM
It's actually 2.4 grams, which may not be a huge difference per se but in a product with such tight parts tollerance to me suggest differences in parts used. It may be the white casing, it may be a reshaped chassis or even a different chip. iFixit will tell.
Thanks for catching that. 2.4g yes.
Thanks for catching that. 2.4g yes.
marksman
Apr 13, 06:45 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8G4)
Anytime an "analyst" opens their mouth, it should be page 2 material at best.
wat!
Anytime an "analyst" opens their mouth, it should be page 2 material at best.
wat!
peapody
Jan 31, 11:36 PM
That just looks ... well not like something I'd stick in my coffee.
That tamper actually looks very comfortable to use. :p
hahah so wrong...
Anyways, just picked up mass effect 2 for ps3 for my brother who has been good the last few weeks helping me out with my ebay biz.
*And typing this post on my last purchase - an HP mini 1030nr that I just hackintoshed...everything works great! A little macbook air for $90 bucks! Very happy right now!
That tamper actually looks very comfortable to use. :p
hahah so wrong...
Anyways, just picked up mass effect 2 for ps3 for my brother who has been good the last few weeks helping me out with my ebay biz.
*And typing this post on my last purchase - an HP mini 1030nr that I just hackintoshed...everything works great! A little macbook air for $90 bucks! Very happy right now!
nishishei
Aug 18, 12:08 PM
I've seen the blue screen on XP. It's funny because I've been told by Windows users that it doesn't exist in XP, yet I witnessed it two weeks ago when a colleague of mine was trying to do something with Adobe Acrobat. The program just spazzed and the blue screen came up.
Your colleague either downloads porn/warez, or there is a potential hard drive physical failure (bad sectors on the disk), or he has crappy 3rd party drivers. Seriously, I've never seen the blue screen in XP and I've used XP since it came out on 3 computers plus work. These jokes on the XP blue screen are so misinformed that the laugh is on the joker. XP is very stable considering how much compatibility it has to provide for the infinite combinations of drivers, software and hardware.
Your colleague either downloads porn/warez, or there is a potential hard drive physical failure (bad sectors on the disk), or he has crappy 3rd party drivers. Seriously, I've never seen the blue screen in XP and I've used XP since it came out on 3 computers plus work. These jokes on the XP blue screen are so misinformed that the laugh is on the joker. XP is very stable considering how much compatibility it has to provide for the infinite combinations of drivers, software and hardware.
Gregintosh
Apr 23, 06:47 PM
I would buy this immediately. No more crappy Edge service on my iPhone. It's a chore to load anything on it, even google maps and simple web pages.
aristotle
Oct 2, 10:45 AM
If you want to lay the blame at anyones feet, it should be Apple. They should have made a CDMA version and split the load between the networks.
I can just imagine the lawsuits from clueless american consumers complaining that their iPhone from verizon does not work in Europe like their friends AT&T iPhone.
:rolleyes:
CDMA is a dying technology. That is why verizon is switching to LTE (4G GSM).
The blame does not lay with Apple. The blame rests solely on the entire wireless industry who have been claiming "unlimited" data on phones that were too crippled by a lack of features or crappy software like browsers for people to even bother trying to use a lot of data bandwidth. The iPhone changed all of that and AT&T should have offered capped plans but then a bunch of american consumers with a sense of entitlement would have complained that Verizon were offering unlimited data on their crappy phones.
The iPhone was such a major game changer in how people use wireless data that no carrier in the US would have been prepared for the load. In Europe, where the Nokia smart phones are more popular, there was higher data usage long before the iPhone came to the scene. In North America, most phones offered texting and WAP internet access. Smartphone usage was much lower in our region compared with Europe.
I can just imagine the lawsuits from clueless american consumers complaining that their iPhone from verizon does not work in Europe like their friends AT&T iPhone.
:rolleyes:
CDMA is a dying technology. That is why verizon is switching to LTE (4G GSM).
The blame does not lay with Apple. The blame rests solely on the entire wireless industry who have been claiming "unlimited" data on phones that were too crippled by a lack of features or crappy software like browsers for people to even bother trying to use a lot of data bandwidth. The iPhone changed all of that and AT&T should have offered capped plans but then a bunch of american consumers with a sense of entitlement would have complained that Verizon were offering unlimited data on their crappy phones.
The iPhone was such a major game changer in how people use wireless data that no carrier in the US would have been prepared for the load. In Europe, where the Nokia smart phones are more popular, there was higher data usage long before the iPhone came to the scene. In North America, most phones offered texting and WAP internet access. Smartphone usage was much lower in our region compared with Europe.
res1233
Apr 23, 01:02 AM
You miss the point. I did not investigate the details about the number of chips. Not everyone cares. The point here is that there many people who want LTE and the there is Apple with their "single phone fits all" strategy. Here is a piece of relevant information for you from Information Week:
"In its recently quarterly earnings report, Verizon Wireless noted that more than 500,000 customers signed up for LTE services and/or devices during its most recent quarter. Add that to the 65,000 who signed up in December, and Verizon has about 565,000 people using its next-generation wireless network. At this rate, Verizon may have more than 2 million 4G users by the end of the year.
Of the 500,000 who signed up for 4G services this quarter, more than half (260,000) chose a 4G phone--the HTC Thunderbolt--that went on sale in mid-March. It scored a significant number of customers in its first two weeks of availability. That means between January 1 and March 15, about 240,000 people purchased other 4G devices, such as USB modems."
As you can see 260K people bought HTC Thunderbolt since Verizon started selling them (about a month). This translates to about 3 million phones annually. Clearly the demand is there. Also, you keep forgetting that other phones have swappable batteries.
What do you don't seem to understand is that most people would rather not have to keep swapping the battery in their phone throughout the day, nor should anyone have to. There is demand for LTE, yes, but 4 hours of battery life is not what i would call good. What good is your phone to you if the battery is dead? You may be fine with switching your battery twice a day, but i think the majority of us would rather have a phone that we know is reliable and wont die on us. Also, 3G is good enough for me for now, and I know I'm not alone. When LTE/3G hybrid chips are here, i will welcome it.
"In its recently quarterly earnings report, Verizon Wireless noted that more than 500,000 customers signed up for LTE services and/or devices during its most recent quarter. Add that to the 65,000 who signed up in December, and Verizon has about 565,000 people using its next-generation wireless network. At this rate, Verizon may have more than 2 million 4G users by the end of the year.
Of the 500,000 who signed up for 4G services this quarter, more than half (260,000) chose a 4G phone--the HTC Thunderbolt--that went on sale in mid-March. It scored a significant number of customers in its first two weeks of availability. That means between January 1 and March 15, about 240,000 people purchased other 4G devices, such as USB modems."
As you can see 260K people bought HTC Thunderbolt since Verizon started selling them (about a month). This translates to about 3 million phones annually. Clearly the demand is there. Also, you keep forgetting that other phones have swappable batteries.
What do you don't seem to understand is that most people would rather not have to keep swapping the battery in their phone throughout the day, nor should anyone have to. There is demand for LTE, yes, but 4 hours of battery life is not what i would call good. What good is your phone to you if the battery is dead? You may be fine with switching your battery twice a day, but i think the majority of us would rather have a phone that we know is reliable and wont die on us. Also, 3G is good enough for me for now, and I know I'm not alone. When LTE/3G hybrid chips are here, i will welcome it.
Mal
Jul 26, 08:53 PM
Mr Blah, your name seems to be appropriate. No one looks at a tower and says, "Hey, that looks like a really innovative computer." However, how many people think that (maybe not in those exact words, but the idea) about the iMac? I'd venture to guess a lot more than ever thought that about a Dell. That's why Apple's viewed as the leader in the computer industry even by a lot of people who don't have or even want Macs. If Apple sacrificed that for the sake of perceived benefit on the part of the same people that go for Dells because they're "tools", they're not going to gain anything. Apple survives and flourishes by being the technology leaders, not by copying overused designs like towers.
jW
jW
Няма коментари:
Публикуване на коментар