stormj
Aug 11, 01:45 PM
If Apple pick a carrier, I hope is not Cingular. But from past situations, that's very likely.
The ideal is a carrier free phone. That way the iphone can reach many more people and make it possible to upgrade phones without asking people to terminate their contracts.
There is no way there won't be a GSM version. Maybe you'll have to buy it in Europe or Japan, and it might not be quad band, but there will be. There are only a handful of countries besides the US where there is anything but GSM.
I predict any Apple phone will be available at apple stores, unlocked, and for GSM/UTMS.
The ideal is a carrier free phone. That way the iphone can reach many more people and make it possible to upgrade phones without asking people to terminate their contracts.
There is no way there won't be a GSM version. Maybe you'll have to buy it in Europe or Japan, and it might not be quad band, but there will be. There are only a handful of countries besides the US where there is anything but GSM.
I predict any Apple phone will be available at apple stores, unlocked, and for GSM/UTMS.
craig jones
Sep 13, 12:58 PM
Arrays of cheap RAM on a PCIe card?
The RAM companies don't seem interested in making wodges of slow cheap hi-cap ram, only in bumping up the speed and upping the capacity. For the last 10 years, a stick of decent RAM has always been about �100/ $100 no matter what the capacity / flavour of the moment is.
Even slow RAM is still orders of magnitude faster than a HD, hence my point. There's various historical and technical factors as to why we have the current situation.
I've also looked at RAID implementations (I run a RAID5) but each RAID level has its own problems.
I've recently seen that single-user RAID3 might be one way forward for the desktop, but don't really know enough about it yet.
Slow RAM may be faster than hard disk but it's too slow for main memory. It could be useful for disk cache but products like that came and went. If such hardware could actually result in performance improvements to justify their costs then you'd see products that used them.
As for RAID 3, it has been used before but really has no place considering modern disk drives and workloads. RAID 3 and 4, in order to work properly, require spindle sync. Workstations have no business implementing any parity-based RAID scheme. Servers used RAID 5 when they have high capacity needs and aren't sensitive to write performance.
The RAM companies don't seem interested in making wodges of slow cheap hi-cap ram, only in bumping up the speed and upping the capacity. For the last 10 years, a stick of decent RAM has always been about �100/ $100 no matter what the capacity / flavour of the moment is.
Even slow RAM is still orders of magnitude faster than a HD, hence my point. There's various historical and technical factors as to why we have the current situation.
I've also looked at RAID implementations (I run a RAID5) but each RAID level has its own problems.
I've recently seen that single-user RAID3 might be one way forward for the desktop, but don't really know enough about it yet.
Slow RAM may be faster than hard disk but it's too slow for main memory. It could be useful for disk cache but products like that came and went. If such hardware could actually result in performance improvements to justify their costs then you'd see products that used them.
As for RAID 3, it has been used before but really has no place considering modern disk drives and workloads. RAID 3 and 4, in order to work properly, require spindle sync. Workstations have no business implementing any parity-based RAID scheme. Servers used RAID 5 when they have high capacity needs and aren't sensitive to write performance.
HecubusPro
Aug 27, 12:08 PM
But that doesn't make Nintendo (or Microsoft or Sony) suck. Fanboys just make themselves suck by being fanboys. :)
You are correct, sir.:D
You are correct, sir.:D
Thomas Veil
Apr 28, 04:51 PM
Jesus wasn't born in America, yet you don't see Republicans trying to keep him out of government.Highly droll. I see we're channeling Mark Twain tonight. :D
FoxHoundADAM
Apr 11, 12:03 PM
Just picked up a Atrix 4G and on my way checked out the iPhone 4 - it looks decidedly antique and bland in front of the competition - Apple waiting until September would mean they rely awful lot on people's stupidity to keep buying it for 8 more months!
That ain't gonna happen - we will see a dual core iPhone 5 by June shipping by July or something (followed by shortages and long waits.)!
I agree on you point about the iPhone starting to look "old' compared to these newer phones. However I don't think Apple cares and will wait until September now.
As for people saying that it's silly because those new phones have terrible battery, well unless the battery dies in the 5 mintures they are playing with the phone in the store I don't think the average consumer really will care. Sure they may complain about it after they get it but hey they won't do anything about it until that 2 year contract is up so it's still a sale for Android and a loss for Apple.
That ain't gonna happen - we will see a dual core iPhone 5 by June shipping by July or something (followed by shortages and long waits.)!
I agree on you point about the iPhone starting to look "old' compared to these newer phones. However I don't think Apple cares and will wait until September now.
As for people saying that it's silly because those new phones have terrible battery, well unless the battery dies in the 5 mintures they are playing with the phone in the store I don't think the average consumer really will care. Sure they may complain about it after they get it but hey they won't do anything about it until that 2 year contract is up so it's still a sale for Android and a loss for Apple.
marksman
Mar 31, 09:09 PM
I neither agree or disagree with this statement, I'm just very curious as to whether or not it is true. Anyone have an data that can prove/disprove this?
I have just tried to find some information on this, and the only information I can find are two seperate quarters where a blackberry phone was number 1 for that particular quarter. The 3G was second in that quarter. In another instance, Blackberry was #1 for a quarter, and the 3GS was #2 and the 3G was #4.
There is a lack of data actually listing the top selling individual smartphones out there.
The interesting thing is I suspect the other top selling phones are all Blackberry devices. Maybe the Droid would be in there, but I suspect if you did a top 10 only one android device would be there.
I have just tried to find some information on this, and the only information I can find are two seperate quarters where a blackberry phone was number 1 for that particular quarter. The 3G was second in that quarter. In another instance, Blackberry was #1 for a quarter, and the 3GS was #2 and the 3G was #4.
There is a lack of data actually listing the top selling individual smartphones out there.
The interesting thing is I suspect the other top selling phones are all Blackberry devices. Maybe the Droid would be in there, but I suspect if you did a top 10 only one android device would be there.
ergle2
Sep 13, 12:53 PM
Only the Yonah based Core Duo iMacs are 32bit (Well, and the G3/G4 too). G5 and the new iMac Core 2 Duo models on sale now are 64bit. Not that it matters per se.
The Chipset in the Yonah iMac is still 945, which works fine with Merom's long mode (64bit/EM64T more).
The Chipset in the Yonah iMac is still 945, which works fine with Merom's long mode (64bit/EM64T more).
bjdku
Sep 18, 11:05 PM
It would be cool but how is Apple going to keep up with this feverous pace of Intel chip releases? In a couple months there will be another chip upgrade in the whole line...what is the next chip after Merom?
citizenzen
Mar 23, 03:03 PM
"Lying" implies intent. Are you accusing them of lying, or getting it wrong?
OMG. They definitely lied.
Just like Clinton.
They looked right into the camera and lied to the world.
Only their lies had more at stake than some blowjobs.
OMG. They definitely lied.
Just like Clinton.
They looked right into the camera and lied to the world.
Only their lies had more at stake than some blowjobs.
rdowns
Jun 8, 06:56 PM
Apple really geared up for this rollout. Look how many countries and how fast they're ramping up. I bet all their big retail partners have it on launch day. Those retailers want in on the iPhone rush too.:D
Daringescape
Aug 12, 10:49 AM
If this phone would affect Nano sales, do you think that could be the reason Apple is giving them away with MacBook and MacBookPro sales? Trying to get rid of extra stock before the iPhone is released?
just a thought
Russ
just a thought
Russ
KT Walrus
Apr 7, 10:58 PM
I know some Apple Stores hold back iPad 2 stock for "special customers". I was talking to a retired school teacher who had a contact at an Apple Store and she said she got her iPad 2 by having her contact hold one for her when he could. She got hers a few days after they first went on sale when her contact called and all she had to do was pick it up at her convenience.
Best Buy employees aren't the only ones setting aside stock of iPad 2s. It isn't about first come first served, but who you know.
Best Buy employees aren't the only ones setting aside stock of iPad 2s. It isn't about first come first served, but who you know.
dernhelm
Aug 7, 03:48 PM
Hey nice to see osx will have system restore =D
YOU MUST BE KIDDING. Have you actually used System Restore to restore a single file? Oh that's right, you can't. All you can do it reset your system back to a point where the file existed.
This is MUCH more powerful, and more like something users would actually want.
System Restore is great for those times when you want to apply a system patch that could be iffy, and you are willing to "snap" a restore point, apply the patch, and roll back if something didn't fly.
But for the normal user, it is much more useless.
YOU MUST BE KIDDING. Have you actually used System Restore to restore a single file? Oh that's right, you can't. All you can do it reset your system back to a point where the file existed.
This is MUCH more powerful, and more like something users would actually want.
System Restore is great for those times when you want to apply a system patch that could be iffy, and you are willing to "snap" a restore point, apply the patch, and roll back if something didn't fly.
But for the normal user, it is much more useless.
aafuss1
Aug 6, 05:26 PM
I think they'll go UDI instead of HDMI (and save fees). The really interesting question here though is HDCP and what means for all existing hardware including cinema displays...
HDMI is very common-as many brands have it now. Some PC's also use it. UDI is better-but not a lot of devices may have until 2007.
HDMI is very common-as many brands have it now. Some PC's also use it. UDI is better-but not a lot of devices may have until 2007.
Reach9
Apr 11, 04:45 PM
"Perfectly?" Really?
I can do everything you listed above in iOS just as well as Android - and in many cases better - except in the area of notifications. An area in which iOS truly does suck. How Apple has not yet fixed this boggles the mind.
"Perfectly" as in, in my opinion perfectly. You don't have to agree with me.
No, you can't.
Checking email and Browsing the Internet is better on a bigger screen. Listening to songs is universal. Texting, some Android phones vibrate when you touch the keys making it feel more real. Multitasking, Android did that long before iOS did and does it in a better way, especially with the "kill all open apps" option. Notifications..that's a no brainer. Ability to open Office files, yes the iPhone does that well, but it's much better with a bigger screen. Navigation system..using an Android you don't have to pay $70 (TomTom) for something which should've come with your device. Basic tools, yes iPhone does that too.
Again, it's preference.
If you're going to use "late" as a barometer of success, Android was "later" than iOS at doing just about everything else.
It was late because other Android smartphones already had these features. These are key features that a smartphone should have, and the iPhone didn't. Again, keep in mind my definition of a smartphone is different than yours.
What did Android release which was later than the iOS which defined a smartphone?
Yep, like an...iPad? :p
Yup, but not many people want to lug around a 10" tablet and would like the extra screen real estate on their phones. I know i would.
Of course. Those bajillion apps, most of which completely destroy Android in quality, are an unimportant aside.
If Google thinks like you - that the App Store is merely a "bonus feature" - this war will be won by Apple.
Of course the App Store apps are higher quality, but conveniently you didn't read when i said, for argument sake..
Imagine your iPhone without the App store and all the apps you downloaded from it. Now imagine the HTC EVO without the Android app store. Which is the better smartphone? It's pretty obvious if you ask me.
Anyway, i'll have an iPod Touch for the App Store features. Thus having the best of both worlds, i'll be able to enjoy a productive smartphone using Android, and a nice media device with the App Store.
sure i still use my iPhone 4 for some apps i can't get on the android, but apps r really the only thing that still saves the iPhone. of course its stupid to argue about that on a "mac"rumors site, so i'll just ***** up ^^
Well, apps aren't the only thing that saves the iPhone. But, yeah sadly, you're right.
I can do everything you listed above in iOS just as well as Android - and in many cases better - except in the area of notifications. An area in which iOS truly does suck. How Apple has not yet fixed this boggles the mind.
"Perfectly" as in, in my opinion perfectly. You don't have to agree with me.
No, you can't.
Checking email and Browsing the Internet is better on a bigger screen. Listening to songs is universal. Texting, some Android phones vibrate when you touch the keys making it feel more real. Multitasking, Android did that long before iOS did and does it in a better way, especially with the "kill all open apps" option. Notifications..that's a no brainer. Ability to open Office files, yes the iPhone does that well, but it's much better with a bigger screen. Navigation system..using an Android you don't have to pay $70 (TomTom) for something which should've come with your device. Basic tools, yes iPhone does that too.
Again, it's preference.
If you're going to use "late" as a barometer of success, Android was "later" than iOS at doing just about everything else.
It was late because other Android smartphones already had these features. These are key features that a smartphone should have, and the iPhone didn't. Again, keep in mind my definition of a smartphone is different than yours.
What did Android release which was later than the iOS which defined a smartphone?
Yep, like an...iPad? :p
Yup, but not many people want to lug around a 10" tablet and would like the extra screen real estate on their phones. I know i would.
Of course. Those bajillion apps, most of which completely destroy Android in quality, are an unimportant aside.
If Google thinks like you - that the App Store is merely a "bonus feature" - this war will be won by Apple.
Of course the App Store apps are higher quality, but conveniently you didn't read when i said, for argument sake..
Imagine your iPhone without the App store and all the apps you downloaded from it. Now imagine the HTC EVO without the Android app store. Which is the better smartphone? It's pretty obvious if you ask me.
Anyway, i'll have an iPod Touch for the App Store features. Thus having the best of both worlds, i'll be able to enjoy a productive smartphone using Android, and a nice media device with the App Store.
sure i still use my iPhone 4 for some apps i can't get on the android, but apps r really the only thing that still saves the iPhone. of course its stupid to argue about that on a "mac"rumors site, so i'll just ***** up ^^
Well, apps aren't the only thing that saves the iPhone. But, yeah sadly, you're right.
Billy Boo Bob
Nov 28, 11:02 PM
1 Random artist finds inspiration and writes a song
2 Artist decides his song is so good that he/she records it in a professional studio (which he can rent) so the sound quality is superb
3 Artists logs into the iTMS and publishes his song
4 Artists gets $ from every song sold and the iTMS charges the artist for the distribution
See, that's the catch-22 for new artists. The labels are the ones that get tunes played on the radio. In the 50's and 60's they would strong-arm their stuff in, but I'm sure even nowadays they provide incentives (read: bribes) to get new stuff on the air. Especially if they think the band is really good and will make it in the long run. And don't fool yourself into thinking a new band can get huge without radio.
The problem is that the labels get the artists by the balls when they sign them up to ridiculous contracts. Your 1-4 examples look pretty good on paper, but in order to sell any significant number of copies of their music, anyone wanting it (but doesn't know it yet) has to wade through tons of (what that persons sees as) crap just to get any exposure to something they'll consider good. I'm sure there's a lot of music in the indie catalog that I would just love, but I don't have the time to wade through it all to find it. Instead, I'll listen to the radio and when I hear something I like, I'll try to pay attention to who it is. I may or may not end up buying it, or checking out what else they do, but without radio exposure, most good indie bands don't have a chance in hell of selling to anyone except those that happen to be in the bar where they're playing one weekend.
Now, if you take a look at already established and popular bands, that's a different story. Someone mentioned huge bands like Pink Floyd. Their last couple of CDs didn't need a big label to sell. People were going to buy it if they like Floyd no matter what. And in a case of that kind of popularity, the radio stations were going to play them with or without a major label. The same could be applied to other huge (classic) rock bands, as well as established artists in other music styles (country, rap, R&B, blues, etc...). Another example would be someone like Eric Clapton. He could put one out on "Clapton Records" and would sell nearly, if not exactly, the same number of CDs as he will on a major label.
Unfortunately, the number of artists (of any type of music) that could dismiss the labels and still sell as many CDs and get the same radio exposure are limited. And any new band is going to go nowhere without radio (or MTV/VH1) exposure.
In the end, I don't see the labels going away totally any time soon. They're in cahoots with the big FM music stations and in general, they do a good job of promoting new good bands that sign up. It's just a shame that there's really nothing to keep them from raping the artists. If there were just some way for new bands to get exposure to the masses without having to sell their souls to the labels then things would be better. Unfortunately, the Internet can only go so far in helping a new band with this.
2 Artist decides his song is so good that he/she records it in a professional studio (which he can rent) so the sound quality is superb
3 Artists logs into the iTMS and publishes his song
4 Artists gets $ from every song sold and the iTMS charges the artist for the distribution
See, that's the catch-22 for new artists. The labels are the ones that get tunes played on the radio. In the 50's and 60's they would strong-arm their stuff in, but I'm sure even nowadays they provide incentives (read: bribes) to get new stuff on the air. Especially if they think the band is really good and will make it in the long run. And don't fool yourself into thinking a new band can get huge without radio.
The problem is that the labels get the artists by the balls when they sign them up to ridiculous contracts. Your 1-4 examples look pretty good on paper, but in order to sell any significant number of copies of their music, anyone wanting it (but doesn't know it yet) has to wade through tons of (what that persons sees as) crap just to get any exposure to something they'll consider good. I'm sure there's a lot of music in the indie catalog that I would just love, but I don't have the time to wade through it all to find it. Instead, I'll listen to the radio and when I hear something I like, I'll try to pay attention to who it is. I may or may not end up buying it, or checking out what else they do, but without radio exposure, most good indie bands don't have a chance in hell of selling to anyone except those that happen to be in the bar where they're playing one weekend.
Now, if you take a look at already established and popular bands, that's a different story. Someone mentioned huge bands like Pink Floyd. Their last couple of CDs didn't need a big label to sell. People were going to buy it if they like Floyd no matter what. And in a case of that kind of popularity, the radio stations were going to play them with or without a major label. The same could be applied to other huge (classic) rock bands, as well as established artists in other music styles (country, rap, R&B, blues, etc...). Another example would be someone like Eric Clapton. He could put one out on "Clapton Records" and would sell nearly, if not exactly, the same number of CDs as he will on a major label.
Unfortunately, the number of artists (of any type of music) that could dismiss the labels and still sell as many CDs and get the same radio exposure are limited. And any new band is going to go nowhere without radio (or MTV/VH1) exposure.
In the end, I don't see the labels going away totally any time soon. They're in cahoots with the big FM music stations and in general, they do a good job of promoting new good bands that sign up. It's just a shame that there's really nothing to keep them from raping the artists. If there were just some way for new bands to get exposure to the masses without having to sell their souls to the labels then things would be better. Unfortunately, the Internet can only go so far in helping a new band with this.
pmz
Apr 6, 10:30 AM
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) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
I have a 13" ultimate of the current generation. The limiting factor for me is the graphics, not the processor. so going to sandy bridge with the intel 3000 would be a less appealing machine for my uses than the current model. It's really too bad the sandy bridge macs are tied to those garbage integrated graphics.
Since you have no clue how the sandy bridge airs will perform, I'll take your statement as FUD.
I have a 13" ultimate of the current generation. The limiting factor for me is the graphics, not the processor. so going to sandy bridge with the intel 3000 would be a less appealing machine for my uses than the current model. It's really too bad the sandy bridge macs are tied to those garbage integrated graphics.
Since you have no clue how the sandy bridge airs will perform, I'll take your statement as FUD.
Benjy91
Apr 25, 01:38 PM
Except secured
But it's not even your true location, its just the locations of your nearest Cell tower and Wi-Fi Network.
Often the records are up to 2 miles away.
But it's not even your true location, its just the locations of your nearest Cell tower and Wi-Fi Network.
Often the records are up to 2 miles away.
Winnychan213
Apr 11, 06:26 PM
I don't see 1 gig of ram coming, but It may well be upgraded. On top of what you said, larger screen, 4G, 8 MP 1080p video and FaceTime hd and that would 100% be a worthy upgrade. Sadly, it won't turn out that way.
I only speak for myself on this, but i probably wouldn't need 4G, 1080 camera or facetime hd. I will buy a camera for taking videos, and a lot of places where i commute every day had wifi, and it is my point of view that you dont need facetime hd as well. (Unless you enjoy looking at the pimples on your wife's face, then thats another story)
I only speak for myself on this, but i probably wouldn't need 4G, 1080 camera or facetime hd. I will buy a camera for taking videos, and a lot of places where i commute every day had wifi, and it is my point of view that you dont need facetime hd as well. (Unless you enjoy looking at the pimples on your wife's face, then thats another story)
FF_productions
Aug 15, 01:04 PM
My main interest is in FCP the FCP results.
On a fixed budget, does anyone know the advantage/disadvantage of going for the 2.0Ghz with 1900XT over 2.6Ghz with the std video card?
Video cards won't make a difference in FCP as of now if that's what you are asking performance wise. If you are using Motion/Games, anything that really feeds off the video card, then I'd go for the higher end video card.
Otherwise I'd go for the 2.6 ghz.
On a fixed budget, does anyone know the advantage/disadvantage of going for the 2.0Ghz with 1900XT over 2.6Ghz with the std video card?
Video cards won't make a difference in FCP as of now if that's what you are asking performance wise. If you are using Motion/Games, anything that really feeds off the video card, then I'd go for the higher end video card.
Otherwise I'd go for the 2.6 ghz.
k995
Apr 20, 09:03 AM
The key thing here from Apple's standpoint is "Trade Dress".
No one will ever confuse a Samsung F700 with an iPhone. Now way. No how.
However the Galaxy devices are so close to Apple's products in appearance and design, it's very hard to tell them apart. THAT is the problem.
So you honestly think people will fail to notice the giant Samsung printed on the front of the galaxy S (for example?)
Its different in size, has different screen different UI, different buttons,...
No one will ever confuse a Samsung F700 with an iPhone. Now way. No how.
However the Galaxy devices are so close to Apple's products in appearance and design, it's very hard to tell them apart. THAT is the problem.
So you honestly think people will fail to notice the giant Samsung printed on the front of the galaxy S (for example?)
Its different in size, has different screen different UI, different buttons,...
samcraig
Apr 27, 08:51 AM
Ok then show me where it says that turning location services off will not stop the tracking. I've scanned the articles and did not find anything that said that. If it does still track when you turn it off, I'd like to know.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704123204576283580249161342.html
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704123204576283580249161342.html
J-R-P
Apr 10, 09:19 AM
It is Gretzky not Gretsky.
sunfast
Aug 11, 10:09 AM
These iPhone rumours continue to persist. I admit to being a sceptic, but maybe I'm wrong! I just hope that if they do do it, they do it well.
No comments:
Post a Comment