lordonuthin
Apr 10, 11:47 AM
dang. yeah, not asking for much huh :cool:
but don't be surprised if you don't get half of that, and it costs $6k.
this is one of the main things that bothers me about apple. i just don't understand why they wait so long to update the mac pros like this. at least announce something
I know... but I can always hope :p
It used to be worse when we had to wait for Motorola/IBM to produce enough chips, there were almost always delays in production because of yield issues or something else.
but don't be surprised if you don't get half of that, and it costs $6k.
this is one of the main things that bothers me about apple. i just don't understand why they wait so long to update the mac pros like this. at least announce something
I know... but I can always hope :p
It used to be worse when we had to wait for Motorola/IBM to produce enough chips, there were almost always delays in production because of yield issues or something else.
-aggie-
Jul 21, 12:10 PM
The slow pace of messages here shows that this has gone from being important to the masses and the trolls to now be a small problem. Previous threads (those from before the videos and pressconference) added three pages in the time it took to read one, there was just no way to keep up with them. This has still not gotten much over 50.
It is interesting, but few considers the new iPhone to be broken anymore. No matter what you think of how Jobs handled it, he completely defused a situation that was becoming very hostile. I'm sure this will be taught and dissected at universities for years just as Intels poor handling of PR with the "faulty" processors is taught as the difference between dealing with companies and customers. This was a lesson for all and many key bloggers have already written pieces of how he changed the usual dynamics of apologizing for any perceived issue.
Exactly. When the usual suspects don't post, the threads that brought up the reception issue totally die.
It is interesting, but few considers the new iPhone to be broken anymore. No matter what you think of how Jobs handled it, he completely defused a situation that was becoming very hostile. I'm sure this will be taught and dissected at universities for years just as Intels poor handling of PR with the "faulty" processors is taught as the difference between dealing with companies and customers. This was a lesson for all and many key bloggers have already written pieces of how he changed the usual dynamics of apologizing for any perceived issue.
Exactly. When the usual suspects don't post, the threads that brought up the reception issue totally die.
roadbloc
Apr 23, 04:13 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8H7)
How would they acquire the data? How would they know this is a young person they actually want to follow? Couldn't they just follow them home from somewhere? Does the person need to lose their phone for a danger to occur? Does this paedophile need to have a phone with them?
The tracking that is occurring is by cell tower identification when someone is in range of one. Will the paedophile have access to a spy satellite to zero in on the exact location of an individual?
I'm still not buying it.
It is no secret that pedophiles have been known to hack children's computers to gain access to their webcam pictures, messenger conversations and ect. If that child has an iPhone and the said pedophile knows the file that contains the iPhone locations; what the pedo essentially has is the child's daily or weekly routine of where they are.
I buy it. Slim chance, but certainly possible and certainly doable.
How would they acquire the data? How would they know this is a young person they actually want to follow? Couldn't they just follow them home from somewhere? Does the person need to lose their phone for a danger to occur? Does this paedophile need to have a phone with them?
The tracking that is occurring is by cell tower identification when someone is in range of one. Will the paedophile have access to a spy satellite to zero in on the exact location of an individual?
I'm still not buying it.
It is no secret that pedophiles have been known to hack children's computers to gain access to their webcam pictures, messenger conversations and ect. If that child has an iPhone and the said pedophile knows the file that contains the iPhone locations; what the pedo essentially has is the child's daily or weekly routine of where they are.
I buy it. Slim chance, but certainly possible and certainly doable.
Warbrain
Sep 12, 08:29 AM
Is this new?
http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/wo/2.RSLID?mco=34809CF6&nplm=TH578LL%2FA
http://store.apple.com/Catalog/US/Images/th578lla_alt.jpg
Simple answer: No.
http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/wo/2.RSLID?mco=34809CF6&nplm=TH578LL%2FA
http://store.apple.com/Catalog/US/Images/th578lla_alt.jpg
Simple answer: No.
kgtenacious
May 2, 03:52 PM
Are we merely targets for advertising, or are we human?
Yes.
Yes.
ewinemiller
Mar 26, 05:29 PM
Not surprising. When I was in high school someone broke into our house stole a .22 pistol and a bunch of jewelry, also a pillow cover to carry it. Eventually the .22 turned up after they tried to hold up a convenience store. The thieves were friends with the family across the street.
jakaj
Oct 28, 03:19 PM
I don't blame Apple. The OSS community abused what they had and turned to piracy by stealing the GUI. Kudos Apple.
Now that's a stupid thing to say. The OSS community doesnt steal the GUI, the warez community does. And those two really don't overlap much.
It is true, though, that everyone might use the work of the OSS community, even for illegal purposes.
Now that's a stupid thing to say. The OSS community doesnt steal the GUI, the warez community does. And those two really don't overlap much.
It is true, though, that everyone might use the work of the OSS community, even for illegal purposes.
Doctor Q
Apr 15, 06:10 PM
Is the difference that Apple is more willing to talk to and play ball with the content providers? Is it that Google has been "changing its demands"? Is it about technical concerns? Are the content provides trying to guess who the winning horse will be?
Or (my guess) is it all about the revenue sharing model?
Or (my guess) is it all about the revenue sharing model?
Jaymes
Mar 28, 03:16 PM
In other words, it is now more fair to everyone because you just need to be in the App Store rather than having to submit your app specifically to be considered.
In other words, it's less fair to everyone, because you have to fork over $0.30 of every $1.00 you make to Apple in order to be part of the Mac App store just to be in the running for the design award.
It's going to be interesting to see if open-source products win any awards whatsoever this year. In the past, several have brought home awards.
But I digress, as the new Big Brother on the block, I had almost forgot that "Apple knows best".
In other words, it's less fair to everyone, because you have to fork over $0.30 of every $1.00 you make to Apple in order to be part of the Mac App store just to be in the running for the design award.
It's going to be interesting to see if open-source products win any awards whatsoever this year. In the past, several have brought home awards.
But I digress, as the new Big Brother on the block, I had almost forgot that "Apple knows best".
Mad Mac Maniac
Apr 28, 07:04 AM
I agree that there should be something to come from the votes...However I can't agree that the current system provokes short quick responses. No matter how many posts you have you can't view Marketplace until you have been here 6 months. I rarely post here, but I have gone way over the minimum number of posts, and I still have another month to wait.
Rarely? I wouldn't consider over5 posts a day rare
Rarely? I wouldn't consider over5 posts a day rare
nli10@mac.com
Jan 9, 06:24 PM
i'm 1:40 in - only one glistch and it ironed itself out.
Full Screen QT FTW :)
& I love all the stuff so far. :D
------
Just finished - felt shorter than the 1:56 running time. Glad I waited for video - as we all knew it makes everything much clearer. Keep trying on those links if you can't get it - as Europe sleeps they will onloy get faster - night!
Full Screen QT FTW :)
& I love all the stuff so far. :D
------
Just finished - felt shorter than the 1:56 running time. Glad I waited for video - as we all knew it makes everything much clearer. Keep trying on those links if you can't get it - as Europe sleeps they will onloy get faster - night!
firsttube
Sep 12, 08:38 AM
*SMACK!*
Those are Movie Trailers for the iPod.
Yeah, I just posted that same response on digg, right before it went down for maintenance. One of those "CONFIRMED" headlines saying they had confirmation of the iTMovieStore. Makes me want to roll my... oh yeah :rolleyes:
Those are Movie Trailers for the iPod.
Yeah, I just posted that same response on digg, right before it went down for maintenance. One of those "CONFIRMED" headlines saying they had confirmation of the iTMovieStore. Makes me want to roll my... oh yeah :rolleyes:
goober1223
Apr 6, 11:21 AM
With respect, you clearly don't work in advertising. You pay to put ads in front of the right people, not just anyone. Especially not competing advertisers and agencies. Why do you think Google (a) makes so much advertising revenue and (b) collects so much data about its users? Coincidence?
Secondly individuals are just as greedy as corporations, and generally get to operate outside of the spotlight. Apple has a lot to lose if its iAd platform is seen to be poorly targeting users, but an App developer has a lot to gain from indiscriminate iAd spamming. So in this case, yes, for the sake of self interest I'd expect Apple to reimburse advertisers for clicks inside their iAd app, and I'd expect an independent developer of a similar app to laugh all the way to the bank.
I never said btw I'd expect Apple to reimburse developers for their time on rejected apps. Or if I did I didn't mean it.
I know you didn't say that. I was just explaining my original statement that said that they should.
And no, I don't work in advertising (electrical engineer), so you certainly bring a different view, which I appreciate.
As far as a comparison between corporations and individuals, and in this case Apple, I still see no proof that they aren't charging advertisers for displaying these ads. Certainly, they are more capable than a 3rd party in reimbursing such money, but I also see no proof that there is an exorbitant amount of money to be made here. It's a cool gimmick that will not spend much time in actual use, especially if the ads don't change very often, and if there is no additional content to the application.
Besides, pertaining to your best point, how well are iAds targeted at this point? Considering how few big advertising partners there are, I have a hard time understanding how well they are able to advertise when these ads also aren't included in general browsing, but specifically-purposed apps.
Certainly, Apple wants to get there with iAds, but the first step seems to be to take the premium off of the price. The infrastructure may cost a lot, but they have tons of cash to drain on this project if they want to make it a true competition with google and operate similarly. For instance, if I'm playing "Doodle Bowling", the odds that I will get an iAd for anything relevant to bowling is zero. I also associate bowling with greasy bowling alley food, too, but the odds of having any food advertised (on purpose) appears to be zero, as well. The odds of getting an advertisement for a local bowling alley? Again, zero. If I go online and search "doodle bowling" they have tons of options to select from in targeting my search: past search history (and whatever else they know about me), they know that my search is related to bowling, mobile applications, cartoonish games, etc.
The point is, the differences are innumerous. iAds is absolutely primitive in its targeting capability simply by virtue of how many advertising partners it has, and it should not be any different (at this point) how those ad impressions are received.
Secondly individuals are just as greedy as corporations, and generally get to operate outside of the spotlight. Apple has a lot to lose if its iAd platform is seen to be poorly targeting users, but an App developer has a lot to gain from indiscriminate iAd spamming. So in this case, yes, for the sake of self interest I'd expect Apple to reimburse advertisers for clicks inside their iAd app, and I'd expect an independent developer of a similar app to laugh all the way to the bank.
I never said btw I'd expect Apple to reimburse developers for their time on rejected apps. Or if I did I didn't mean it.
I know you didn't say that. I was just explaining my original statement that said that they should.
And no, I don't work in advertising (electrical engineer), so you certainly bring a different view, which I appreciate.
As far as a comparison between corporations and individuals, and in this case Apple, I still see no proof that they aren't charging advertisers for displaying these ads. Certainly, they are more capable than a 3rd party in reimbursing such money, but I also see no proof that there is an exorbitant amount of money to be made here. It's a cool gimmick that will not spend much time in actual use, especially if the ads don't change very often, and if there is no additional content to the application.
Besides, pertaining to your best point, how well are iAds targeted at this point? Considering how few big advertising partners there are, I have a hard time understanding how well they are able to advertise when these ads also aren't included in general browsing, but specifically-purposed apps.
Certainly, Apple wants to get there with iAds, but the first step seems to be to take the premium off of the price. The infrastructure may cost a lot, but they have tons of cash to drain on this project if they want to make it a true competition with google and operate similarly. For instance, if I'm playing "Doodle Bowling", the odds that I will get an iAd for anything relevant to bowling is zero. I also associate bowling with greasy bowling alley food, too, but the odds of having any food advertised (on purpose) appears to be zero, as well. The odds of getting an advertisement for a local bowling alley? Again, zero. If I go online and search "doodle bowling" they have tons of options to select from in targeting my search: past search history (and whatever else they know about me), they know that my search is related to bowling, mobile applications, cartoonish games, etc.
The point is, the differences are innumerous. iAds is absolutely primitive in its targeting capability simply by virtue of how many advertising partners it has, and it should not be any different (at this point) how those ad impressions are received.
GFLPraxis
Apr 15, 03:27 PM
My only claim is that something the TSA is doing is working to help prevent hijackings. This was in response to some arguments that nothing airport security was doing was in fact useful. If you go back, you will see I quoted both TSA and European stats, not just TSA. And that while there may have been no passenger hijackings in the 90s in the USA, there were a couple in Europe, and one in Japan. And then nothing in Europe and Japan or the USA since 9/11. Which I believe is due to increased airport security, similar to what the TSA does.
That's all I'm saying. I'm not advocating for the current screening, just refuting some baseless arguments that it's a total waste of money ("baseless" as in - "it's my opinion, and I'm not presenting any evidence to support it"). Opinions are fine, and everyone is entitled to them. Just don't expect me to accept an opinion as fact, if I can support my opposing opinion with at least some evidence.
(I'm using Japan and Europe 'cause they also have a tradition of terrorist organizations targeting their planes, and because they "harmonized" their screening standards to the TSA. No choice, if they wanted to continue flying their planes into or over US airspace. Other countries may have also harmonized (like Canada) but either they don't have a tradition of terrorism, or I don't have enough info about them.)
Alright, we might be perceiving each other's arguments differently and arguing semantics in that case.
I have no issue with airport security besides the last two years' increase. I feel the body scanners and pat downs on opt out are unnecessary wastes of time, money, and personal privacy.
I have no issue with other aspects of post 9/11 airport security. I fly all the time and never found it worth giving a thought before the recent implementation.
That's all I'm saying. I'm not advocating for the current screening, just refuting some baseless arguments that it's a total waste of money ("baseless" as in - "it's my opinion, and I'm not presenting any evidence to support it"). Opinions are fine, and everyone is entitled to them. Just don't expect me to accept an opinion as fact, if I can support my opposing opinion with at least some evidence.
(I'm using Japan and Europe 'cause they also have a tradition of terrorist organizations targeting their planes, and because they "harmonized" their screening standards to the TSA. No choice, if they wanted to continue flying their planes into or over US airspace. Other countries may have also harmonized (like Canada) but either they don't have a tradition of terrorism, or I don't have enough info about them.)
Alright, we might be perceiving each other's arguments differently and arguing semantics in that case.
I have no issue with airport security besides the last two years' increase. I feel the body scanners and pat downs on opt out are unnecessary wastes of time, money, and personal privacy.
I have no issue with other aspects of post 9/11 airport security. I fly all the time and never found it worth giving a thought before the recent implementation.
bluebomberman
Oct 2, 05:24 PM
Oh and I also want a T-shirt that says "DVD John cracked my butt." :)
Ouch. Ew. Gross.
:eek:
Ouch. Ew. Gross.
:eek:
imacintel
Nov 16, 08:06 AM
I will never buy an AMD computer again, especially in a laptop. AMDs are very hot processors and they require big fans(I learn that from my bro's Compaq), which make them thick and heavy.
It would be best for me if we could of kept PowerPC, developed a lower powerconsuming but stil powerful G5, or Xenon(chip in XBOX 360). But intel is still got...PPC for LIFE
It would be best for me if we could of kept PowerPC, developed a lower powerconsuming but stil powerful G5, or Xenon(chip in XBOX 360). But intel is still got...PPC for LIFE
twoodcc
May 13, 06:07 AM
argh that makes it hard then. change BIOS settings? what on earth is wrong with your computers lol! they should just restart after a blackout (with correct settings of course) - then away it goes.
well with overclocking, if something goes wrong, to fix it, you've gotta go into the BIOS. it will restart as normal, but the problem will keep happening, and it'll keep crashing and restarting
you should disable HT - you would get more performance, which = more units! :D
(edit: as stated in the other folding thread - my rate has gone down to 13.9x folding speed with 4 core (whatever that means), before with 8threads it was ~16x. )
i have heard people disabling HT, but not many. i'll just stick to what works for me
thats on my OSX 10.5.7 hackintosh - is that possible do you think?
GPU folding right now only works in windows
well with overclocking, if something goes wrong, to fix it, you've gotta go into the BIOS. it will restart as normal, but the problem will keep happening, and it'll keep crashing and restarting
you should disable HT - you would get more performance, which = more units! :D
(edit: as stated in the other folding thread - my rate has gone down to 13.9x folding speed with 4 core (whatever that means), before with 8threads it was ~16x. )
i have heard people disabling HT, but not many. i'll just stick to what works for me
thats on my OSX 10.5.7 hackintosh - is that possible do you think?
GPU folding right now only works in windows
TheSlush
Apr 15, 01:11 PM
LOL at the perspective on the text in the 3rd photo. :D
FAKE.
FAKE.
dgree03
May 3, 04:00 PM
They are offering you more bandwidth to use a higher bandwidth service like tethering.
The consideration is very clear. Thanks for quoting the premise for contract law, but claiming there is no consideration there is ridiculous.
People who tether use more bandwidth, so the cost associated with their usage is more expensive. The carriers can either charge those people for tethering or they can raise the price for EVERYONE.
They choose to charge the people who tether. It is a perfectly reasonable choice on their part.
Hey a cable line comes into my house with all the channels on it. I can just jimmy off a filter and get all the channels without paying any more. They are already delivering it to my house, why can't I just get all of them since they are there anyways and I am paying for cable right?
You are not paying for tethering unless you are paying for tethering. The math is simple. People who tether use more bandwidth. Wireless providers set their data prices based on AVERAGE usage. Tethering makes the average usage go up, so the revenue to cover those costs has to come from somewhere.
So they can either charge EVERYONE more or charge the people who tether more.. Again they choose the later.
Are you seriously defending charging for tethering!? What do you mean MORE bandwidth?
I am paying for a 25 dollar 2gb plan for my phone. 2gb, is 2gb, is 2gb. If I tether it DOES NOT MATTER MY BANDWIDTH, once i use up 2gb i pay overages. It is that simple... I dont have to tether to use 2gb.
Your cable example is weak. On cable you are paying for the content on that line. On your data plan there is no content to pay for.. it is just straight internet.
A better cable example would be a cable company charging you monthly to extend your cable to each seperate room.
The consideration is very clear. Thanks for quoting the premise for contract law, but claiming there is no consideration there is ridiculous.
People who tether use more bandwidth, so the cost associated with their usage is more expensive. The carriers can either charge those people for tethering or they can raise the price for EVERYONE.
They choose to charge the people who tether. It is a perfectly reasonable choice on their part.
Hey a cable line comes into my house with all the channels on it. I can just jimmy off a filter and get all the channels without paying any more. They are already delivering it to my house, why can't I just get all of them since they are there anyways and I am paying for cable right?
You are not paying for tethering unless you are paying for tethering. The math is simple. People who tether use more bandwidth. Wireless providers set their data prices based on AVERAGE usage. Tethering makes the average usage go up, so the revenue to cover those costs has to come from somewhere.
So they can either charge EVERYONE more or charge the people who tether more.. Again they choose the later.
Are you seriously defending charging for tethering!? What do you mean MORE bandwidth?
I am paying for a 25 dollar 2gb plan for my phone. 2gb, is 2gb, is 2gb. If I tether it DOES NOT MATTER MY BANDWIDTH, once i use up 2gb i pay overages. It is that simple... I dont have to tether to use 2gb.
Your cable example is weak. On cable you are paying for the content on that line. On your data plan there is no content to pay for.. it is just straight internet.
A better cable example would be a cable company charging you monthly to extend your cable to each seperate room.
dethmaShine
Apr 13, 06:13 AM
My experience has been the exact opposite with the Mac, whether its trying to access a share on one of my other computers (my wife uses a PC) or accessing network resources on my work's network.
When in windows 7 it "just worked" I had no need to mess with eth0, drivers or any manually set up a network. I was able to connect to the resource and use it. Also it was much faster.
It has always been the same with the mac. Just go to the finder and look for shared computers.
OR
Taskbar: 'Go To Server/Computer'
OR
ssh/ftp > prostuff-not required
I had issues with OSX, that I was unable to access any shared files from my wife's computer. Accessing my work stuff was a bit easier but was SLOW, painfully slow. I pull up a folder with a couple hundred files, and I can easily sit there for well over 10 minutes while OSX does it thing. Windows, just a couple of minutes.
Report bugs. Are you comparing b/w OSX <-> Windows and Windows <-> Windows?
Networking is where windows has a clear advantage of OSX, in part because many (most?) enterprise networks are windows based, at least from my experience.
You are confusing stuff.
Given the design of windows, there's zero chance of that, it would require a complete rewrite and the folks at MS really don't see the design of windows being flawed. Especially since they see the marketshare being what it is - kind of like why fix it if it isn't broke mentality.
Fair enough.
When in windows 7 it "just worked" I had no need to mess with eth0, drivers or any manually set up a network. I was able to connect to the resource and use it. Also it was much faster.
It has always been the same with the mac. Just go to the finder and look for shared computers.
OR
Taskbar: 'Go To Server/Computer'
OR
ssh/ftp > prostuff-not required
I had issues with OSX, that I was unable to access any shared files from my wife's computer. Accessing my work stuff was a bit easier but was SLOW, painfully slow. I pull up a folder with a couple hundred files, and I can easily sit there for well over 10 minutes while OSX does it thing. Windows, just a couple of minutes.
Report bugs. Are you comparing b/w OSX <-> Windows and Windows <-> Windows?
Networking is where windows has a clear advantage of OSX, in part because many (most?) enterprise networks are windows based, at least from my experience.
You are confusing stuff.
Given the design of windows, there's zero chance of that, it would require a complete rewrite and the folks at MS really don't see the design of windows being flawed. Especially since they see the marketshare being what it is - kind of like why fix it if it isn't broke mentality.
Fair enough.
charlituna
Jan 5, 08:32 AM
And why does no iPhone on Jan 4th mean nothing for the rest of 2011??
Indeed. THe rumors were everything from Dec 27, 2010 to when pigs fly. It is not like Apple said they would tell us something by today.
That said, I don't see it happening. Frankly I don't see Apple building a CDMA phone series. Just makes things messy. Now when LTE is mature enough that 90+% folks never have to use a CDMA fallback and the rest rarely do, maybe. When someone comes up with a GSM/CDMA/LTE tri chip that doesn't cost a small fortune, eat up battery by lunch time etc, maybe. But I really think that in terms of 2011 all this CDMA jobs etc is about the ipad, not the iphone.
Indeed. THe rumors were everything from Dec 27, 2010 to when pigs fly. It is not like Apple said they would tell us something by today.
That said, I don't see it happening. Frankly I don't see Apple building a CDMA phone series. Just makes things messy. Now when LTE is mature enough that 90+% folks never have to use a CDMA fallback and the rest rarely do, maybe. When someone comes up with a GSM/CDMA/LTE tri chip that doesn't cost a small fortune, eat up battery by lunch time etc, maybe. But I really think that in terms of 2011 all this CDMA jobs etc is about the ipad, not the iphone.
Earendil
Sep 27, 04:10 PM
After all of the comments about how great Aperture ran, and considering how crappy it was running on mine, I decided to take into the Apple Store.
The video card is defective and they are replacing it. No wonder my experience with the program stunk.
:)
My comments on having the video card do some heavy lifting, and how that's a good idea for the majority of users ,only applies to those that have a video card :rolleyes:
Without a video card I completely agree with you that it would be faster to use the 4 procs :D
The video card is defective and they are replacing it. No wonder my experience with the program stunk.
:)
My comments on having the video card do some heavy lifting, and how that's a good idea for the majority of users ,only applies to those that have a video card :rolleyes:
Without a video card I completely agree with you that it would be faster to use the 4 procs :D
jsw
Jan 10, 08:02 PM
I agree it was immature.
Still, it probably will lead vendors to 'secure' their sets in the future, and the fact that it was so obnoxious and obvious means it's very unlikely this sort of vulnerability will present itself next year.
Still, it probably will lead vendors to 'secure' their sets in the future, and the fact that it was so obnoxious and obvious means it's very unlikely this sort of vulnerability will present itself next year.
Detlev
Mar 28, 02:41 PM
Next they'll want everyone to have an Apple ID to use their services.
Wait�
Wait�
No comments:
Post a Comment