sparkleytone
Mar 26, 08:42 AM
The first time this thought crossed my mind was when I first used WriteRoom, to write a paper. Many seem to think (and Apple has intimated as much) that Full Screen Apps originated from iOS. I think this is wrong. I think Apple first thought about these with WriteRoom, which is why Pages was the first App to get the Full Screen treatment.
Combining it with the new form of spaces is a genius move though.
The idea has definitely been around for a while, but it�s the details of the *implementation* that make it so refreshing. I love and use Spaces, but as it stands in SL it�s just not a feature for every user. Mission Control + Full-screen apps very much is.
Yet another unimpressive "major" update to an O/S that's showing it's age and irrelevance.
Yet another complaint post that shows its originator�s lack of knowledge regarding the subject being commented on.
Compared to the iDevice world, the computer side of Apple has ground to a halt.
Just�false.
Enough!! Combine MacOS and iOS already!!! The transition is so painfully slow, would someone else in tech get off their lazy ass and prod these guys to move a LITTLE quicker?!?
How is this possibly a good idea? Their shells are completely different because they�re targeted at completely different UI paradigms. The underpinnings are generally comparable already, but to argue that they need to be merged is just asinine.
Combining it with the new form of spaces is a genius move though.
The idea has definitely been around for a while, but it�s the details of the *implementation* that make it so refreshing. I love and use Spaces, but as it stands in SL it�s just not a feature for every user. Mission Control + Full-screen apps very much is.
Yet another unimpressive "major" update to an O/S that's showing it's age and irrelevance.
Yet another complaint post that shows its originator�s lack of knowledge regarding the subject being commented on.
Compared to the iDevice world, the computer side of Apple has ground to a halt.
Just�false.
Enough!! Combine MacOS and iOS already!!! The transition is so painfully slow, would someone else in tech get off their lazy ass and prod these guys to move a LITTLE quicker?!?
How is this possibly a good idea? Their shells are completely different because they�re targeted at completely different UI paradigms. The underpinnings are generally comparable already, but to argue that they need to be merged is just asinine.
wizard
Apr 6, 07:46 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) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
Does anyone know if the IGP in these processors is underclocked compared to the variants used in the MacBook Pros?
That is a very good question!
It is likely that the GPU might be a bit slower. That simply because the rest of the chip is clocked slower. Frankly the GPU in Sandy Bridge is the only good reason to throw a little hate Intels way. That being said for many users a SB update to the AIRs will be huge and would make the platform viable for a wider range of users.
Does anyone know if the IGP in these processors is underclocked compared to the variants used in the MacBook Pros?
That is a very good question!
It is likely that the GPU might be a bit slower. That simply because the rest of the chip is clocked slower. Frankly the GPU in Sandy Bridge is the only good reason to throw a little hate Intels way. That being said for many users a SB update to the AIRs will be huge and would make the platform viable for a wider range of users.
ninethirty
Aug 6, 03:15 PM
You have absolutely no chance of winning any legal battle based on what you've described here.
Also, while you're whining about who stole what from who, maybe change your 'save' icon on your site. It's nearly identical to Apples.
As Apple applied for the trademark, it will not be approved.
It is up to Apple how they want to proceed. A fight that can't win, no matter how much money they have.
Mac Pro has been the premier Mac dealer in the same county as Apple since 1988. Out of all the names for this new line of computers, why choose one that they know they cannot have.
We are already getting countless support calls for the macbook pro. It seems they assume we made them When we can't help them, they seem to get very upset.
Mac Pro is in a position to file for a court order not to release any computer that bears our name.
So get ready WWDC, we will be watching.
Mike Ajlouny
President
MAC-PRO.com
Also, while you're whining about who stole what from who, maybe change your 'save' icon on your site. It's nearly identical to Apples.
As Apple applied for the trademark, it will not be approved.
It is up to Apple how they want to proceed. A fight that can't win, no matter how much money they have.
Mac Pro has been the premier Mac dealer in the same county as Apple since 1988. Out of all the names for this new line of computers, why choose one that they know they cannot have.
We are already getting countless support calls for the macbook pro. It seems they assume we made them When we can't help them, they seem to get very upset.
Mac Pro is in a position to file for a court order not to release any computer that bears our name.
So get ready WWDC, we will be watching.
Mike Ajlouny
President
MAC-PRO.com
Huntn
Mar 19, 04:31 PM
When will you people realize that Obama is not in charge? You're not in charge either. Corporate interest rules the USA, Libya has 2% of the world's oil supply and a lot of companies have interests there. No one intervened militarily in Rwanda or East Timor. You guys can continue to have your little left vs right, conservative vs. liberal distraction of a debate, meanwhile the real people running the show don't give a rat's ass about any of it.
It's a known fact the Obama Administration monitors MacRumors forums for a populist read on issues... ;) Yes I agree business is in charge colored by perceived economic end-results.
It's a known fact the Obama Administration monitors MacRumors forums for a populist read on issues... ;) Yes I agree business is in charge colored by perceived economic end-results.
spinko
Jul 15, 08:59 AM
A real mess? That's one fine looking machine. IMO
compared to this, yes.
compared to this, yes.
RebootD
Apr 10, 01:29 AM
Enough Nostradamusesque mysticism and lets get to the real demo already! (Impatient) :D
zelet
Aug 25, 04:18 PM
I was planning to buy a .mac account for e-mail , blogs through iWeb, web pages etc. I am more aware now about it.
Don't get dotMac without some serious research. Their services are slow and they are a ton more expensive than comparable services elsewhere. Of course, the benefits are that its well integrated into OS X but you can do that with a little bit of work. YMMV
Don't get dotMac without some serious research. Their services are slow and they are a ton more expensive than comparable services elsewhere. Of course, the benefits are that its well integrated into OS X but you can do that with a little bit of work. YMMV
Funkymonk
Apr 19, 01:32 PM
I'm surprised to see iPhones have outsold iPod Touches by so much; I've never really considered the figures but just assumed that there would be way more iPod Touches around than iPhones.
why? iphones outselling itouches by so much makes sense to me.
why? iphones outselling itouches by so much makes sense to me.
Eraserhead
Mar 23, 01:50 AM
These things don't travel very fast.
I was having a look on Google and a container ship only takes 20 days or so to get from China to Europe, and a military ship would be faster - so you don't need that much time to get ships into place.
And China to Europe by ship is a long way (http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=hkg-sin-trv-dxb-cai-gib-sou&MS=wls&DU=km).
I was having a look on Google and a container ship only takes 20 days or so to get from China to Europe, and a military ship would be faster - so you don't need that much time to get ships into place.
And China to Europe by ship is a long way (http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=hkg-sin-trv-dxb-cai-gib-sou&MS=wls&DU=km).
McGiord
Mar 31, 10:57 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) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
All the traditional phone manufacturers were used to release a new hardware every year and get the carriers financing the hardware coat over the 2 year contract, even allowing the loyal customers a free or small fee upgrade when the right one comes for them. So google fragmented model might be in sync with the traditional way of delivering new ozone hardware/with updated software for the typical mobile phone user.
Having more control for the benefit of the end user is a must for any of these players. Apple model has been highly successful, as well as google's model. How they will continue, is just a matter of time.
All the traditional phone manufacturers were used to release a new hardware every year and get the carriers financing the hardware coat over the 2 year contract, even allowing the loyal customers a free or small fee upgrade when the right one comes for them. So google fragmented model might be in sync with the traditional way of delivering new ozone hardware/with updated software for the typical mobile phone user.
Having more control for the benefit of the end user is a must for any of these players. Apple model has been highly successful, as well as google's model. How they will continue, is just a matter of time.
Blue Velvet
Mar 23, 06:11 AM
Libya is more like Bosnia than Iraq. A moment of force has the potential to change the scope of the conflict, hopefully for the positive, in a way that a full-blown invasion would merely complicate. That's the central part that fivepoint, who is merely interested in making another partisan screed, is ignoring.
Well exactly. Far easier to tag together some buzzwords, maybe pull something from FoxNews than it is to think critically about the issue. This inane comparison between coalition numbers was also picked up by Steve M.:
Fox Nation huffily declares that "Bush Had 2 Times More Coalition Partners in Iraq Than Obama Has in Libya." Bush's thirty-nation list, of course, included such global powers as Azerbaijan, Estonia, Latvia, and Uzbekistan, and didn't include the likes of, y'know, Germany and France.
But if we're going to play games like this, in the run-up to the war, how many coalition partners did Bush attract per week? The Libyan uprising started just about a month ago and Obama's coalition is fifteen nations. When do you date the start of the "Iraq crisis" the Bushies manufactured? The Axis of Evil speech, fourteen months before the war began? The Battle of Tora Bora, a month before that? The first administration meetings on Iraq regime change, mere days after Bush's inauguration, and more than two years before the Iraq War started? By that standard, Bush barely acquired one coalition partner a month! Obama obtained more than three partners a week!
I'm reminded of the 2000 electoral maps that measured Bush's vote by geography, as if winning a county with more jackrabbits than people was the equivalent of winning a county full of apartment buildings.
http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2011/03/well-if-were-going-to-be-ridiculous.html
Meanwhile, Juan Cole lays out ten reasons why this is not like Iraq:
Here are the differences between George W. Bush�s invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the current United Nations action in Libya:
1. The action in Libya was authorized by the United Nations Security Council. That in Iraq was not. By the UN Charter, military action after 1945 should either come as self-defense or with UNSC authorization. Most countries in the world are signatories to the charter and bound by its provisions.
2. The Libyan people had risen up and thrown off the Qaddafi regime, with some 80-90 percent of the country having gone out of his hands before he started having tank commanders fire shells into peaceful crowds. It was this vast majority of the Libyan people that demanded the UN no-fly zone. In 2002-3 there was no similar popular movement against Saddam Hussein.
3. There was an ongoing massacre of civilians, and the threat of more such massacres in Benghazi, by the Qaddafi regime, which precipitated the UNSC resolution. Although the Saddam Hussein regime had massacred people in the 1980s and early 1990s, nothing was going on in 2002-2003 that would have required international intervention.
4. The Arab League urged the UNSC to take action against the Qaddafi regime, and in many ways precipitated Resolution 1973. The Arab League met in 2002 and expressed opposition to a war on Iraq. (Reports of Arab League backtracking on Sunday were incorrect, based on a remark of outgoing Secretary-General Amr Moussa that criticized the taking out of anti-aircraft batteries. The Arab League reaffirmed Sunday and Moussa agreed Monday that the No-Fly Zone is what it wants).
5. None of the United Nations allies envisages landing troops on the ground, nor does the UNSC authorize it. Iraq was invaded by land forces.
6. No false allegations were made against the Qaddafi regime, of being in league with al-Qaeda or of having a nuclear weapons program. The charge is massacre of peaceful civilian demonstrators and an actual promise to commit more such massacres.
7. The United States did not take the lead role in urging a no-fly zone, and was dragged into this action by its Arab and European allies. President Obama pledges that the US role, mainly disabling anti-aircraft batteries and bombing runways, will last �days, not months� before being turned over to other United Nations allies.
8. There is no sectarian or ethnic dimension to the Libyan conflict, whereas the US Pentagon conspired with Shiite and Kurdish parties to overthrow the Sunni-dominated Baathist regime in Iraq, setting the stage for a prolonged and bitter civil war.
9. The US has not rewarded countries such as Norway for entering the conflict as UN allies, but rather a genuine sense of outrage at the brutal crimes against humanity being committed by Qaddafi and his forces impelled the formation of this coalition. The Bush administration�s �coalition of the willing� in contrast was often brought on board by what were essentially bribes.
10. Iraq in 2002-3 no longer posed a credible threat to its neighbors. A resurgent Qaddafi in Libya with petroleum billions at his disposal would likely attempt to undermine the democratic experiments in Tunisia and Egypt, blighting the lives of millions.
http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/top-ten-ways-that-libya-2011-is-not-iraq-2003.html
Well exactly. Far easier to tag together some buzzwords, maybe pull something from FoxNews than it is to think critically about the issue. This inane comparison between coalition numbers was also picked up by Steve M.:
Fox Nation huffily declares that "Bush Had 2 Times More Coalition Partners in Iraq Than Obama Has in Libya." Bush's thirty-nation list, of course, included such global powers as Azerbaijan, Estonia, Latvia, and Uzbekistan, and didn't include the likes of, y'know, Germany and France.
But if we're going to play games like this, in the run-up to the war, how many coalition partners did Bush attract per week? The Libyan uprising started just about a month ago and Obama's coalition is fifteen nations. When do you date the start of the "Iraq crisis" the Bushies manufactured? The Axis of Evil speech, fourteen months before the war began? The Battle of Tora Bora, a month before that? The first administration meetings on Iraq regime change, mere days after Bush's inauguration, and more than two years before the Iraq War started? By that standard, Bush barely acquired one coalition partner a month! Obama obtained more than three partners a week!
I'm reminded of the 2000 electoral maps that measured Bush's vote by geography, as if winning a county with more jackrabbits than people was the equivalent of winning a county full of apartment buildings.
http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2011/03/well-if-were-going-to-be-ridiculous.html
Meanwhile, Juan Cole lays out ten reasons why this is not like Iraq:
Here are the differences between George W. Bush�s invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the current United Nations action in Libya:
1. The action in Libya was authorized by the United Nations Security Council. That in Iraq was not. By the UN Charter, military action after 1945 should either come as self-defense or with UNSC authorization. Most countries in the world are signatories to the charter and bound by its provisions.
2. The Libyan people had risen up and thrown off the Qaddafi regime, with some 80-90 percent of the country having gone out of his hands before he started having tank commanders fire shells into peaceful crowds. It was this vast majority of the Libyan people that demanded the UN no-fly zone. In 2002-3 there was no similar popular movement against Saddam Hussein.
3. There was an ongoing massacre of civilians, and the threat of more such massacres in Benghazi, by the Qaddafi regime, which precipitated the UNSC resolution. Although the Saddam Hussein regime had massacred people in the 1980s and early 1990s, nothing was going on in 2002-2003 that would have required international intervention.
4. The Arab League urged the UNSC to take action against the Qaddafi regime, and in many ways precipitated Resolution 1973. The Arab League met in 2002 and expressed opposition to a war on Iraq. (Reports of Arab League backtracking on Sunday were incorrect, based on a remark of outgoing Secretary-General Amr Moussa that criticized the taking out of anti-aircraft batteries. The Arab League reaffirmed Sunday and Moussa agreed Monday that the No-Fly Zone is what it wants).
5. None of the United Nations allies envisages landing troops on the ground, nor does the UNSC authorize it. Iraq was invaded by land forces.
6. No false allegations were made against the Qaddafi regime, of being in league with al-Qaeda or of having a nuclear weapons program. The charge is massacre of peaceful civilian demonstrators and an actual promise to commit more such massacres.
7. The United States did not take the lead role in urging a no-fly zone, and was dragged into this action by its Arab and European allies. President Obama pledges that the US role, mainly disabling anti-aircraft batteries and bombing runways, will last �days, not months� before being turned over to other United Nations allies.
8. There is no sectarian or ethnic dimension to the Libyan conflict, whereas the US Pentagon conspired with Shiite and Kurdish parties to overthrow the Sunni-dominated Baathist regime in Iraq, setting the stage for a prolonged and bitter civil war.
9. The US has not rewarded countries such as Norway for entering the conflict as UN allies, but rather a genuine sense of outrage at the brutal crimes against humanity being committed by Qaddafi and his forces impelled the formation of this coalition. The Bush administration�s �coalition of the willing� in contrast was often brought on board by what were essentially bribes.
10. Iraq in 2002-3 no longer posed a credible threat to its neighbors. A resurgent Qaddafi in Libya with petroleum billions at his disposal would likely attempt to undermine the democratic experiments in Tunisia and Egypt, blighting the lives of millions.
http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/top-ten-ways-that-libya-2011-is-not-iraq-2003.html
amin
Sep 14, 10:08 PM
AnandTech is putting a lot of emphasis on this FB-DIMM issue. Their Conroe vs Xeon comparisons are poor given that they maximize the FB-DIMM latency "problem" by using a Mac Pro with only two RAM slots occupied. Seems as though they have an agenda to exaggerate the importance of this technical issue.
m-dogg
Aug 7, 04:06 PM
Time Machines sounds interesting, though I think I'd have to buy an external drive to ever use it.
What about Safari? Doesn't sound like there was any reference to this, except related to widgets. I'd love to have more control over tabs, like moving/rerranging thier order, adding a second row of tabs instead of the annoying arrow to see what doesn't fit on one row, moving a tab from one open Safari window to another, tab expose, alerts like Ollie's Tab so you don't accidentally close a window with multiple tabs, and a new unified UI to name a few...
What about Safari? Doesn't sound like there was any reference to this, except related to widgets. I'd love to have more control over tabs, like moving/rerranging thier order, adding a second row of tabs instead of the annoying arrow to see what doesn't fit on one row, moving a tab from one open Safari window to another, tab expose, alerts like Ollie's Tab so you don't accidentally close a window with multiple tabs, and a new unified UI to name a few...
rayz
Aug 8, 03:08 AM
Well I for one was kind of disappointed. Leopard is sort of Apple's chance to prove they can out-Vista Vista, and I'm not really sure what we saw today does it. I've been following Vista somewhat closely, and it really does catch Windows up to OS X in terms of features and prettiness.
I really think most of the features shown off today are already present in Windows (I've definitely heard about all of them before) or will be in Vista, and it's too bad Apple didn't have anything truly innovative to show us. Hopefully those secret features are something good...
The other thing that has me a little concerned is the huge amount of Vista-bashing that went on. I feel like if Leopard at this point were truly better than Vista, they'd be silent about Vista entirely and let the new system speak for itself. That would be really slick. That's not what happened however, and instead there was a lot of "look what Vista copied from us" and "check out how much better Leopard is." What I saw today, though, makes the former statement sound whiney and the latter sound foolish, since in my eyes, in terms of features, they're about on-par with each other.
I really hope Apple pulls it together. They've got to do this right, because come next year, most of the myriad reasons for switching to a Mac will be nullified by Vista.
BTW: whoever this "Platform Experience" guy is, get him off the stage and go back to Steve.
Have to agree with you on just about everything. If MS tried to release something like this, as anything other than a service pack, their user base would (quite rightly) crucify them.
The TimeMachine mirrors the same functionality that was announced for Vista about a week ago, and everything else is an upgrade rather than anything really new. I was expecting more from the desktop switching, but I have a feeling that will look much different when it's actually released.
But since there is some other stuff planned, then it's best to wait and see what they come up with, before declaring it a dud.
Looks like a nice solid revision so far, but not much else.
.. and given the universal unpopularity of Microsoft's Flip3D interface, I was surprised to see it showing up in the UI for TimeMachine.
I really think most of the features shown off today are already present in Windows (I've definitely heard about all of them before) or will be in Vista, and it's too bad Apple didn't have anything truly innovative to show us. Hopefully those secret features are something good...
The other thing that has me a little concerned is the huge amount of Vista-bashing that went on. I feel like if Leopard at this point were truly better than Vista, they'd be silent about Vista entirely and let the new system speak for itself. That would be really slick. That's not what happened however, and instead there was a lot of "look what Vista copied from us" and "check out how much better Leopard is." What I saw today, though, makes the former statement sound whiney and the latter sound foolish, since in my eyes, in terms of features, they're about on-par with each other.
I really hope Apple pulls it together. They've got to do this right, because come next year, most of the myriad reasons for switching to a Mac will be nullified by Vista.
BTW: whoever this "Platform Experience" guy is, get him off the stage and go back to Steve.
Have to agree with you on just about everything. If MS tried to release something like this, as anything other than a service pack, their user base would (quite rightly) crucify them.
The TimeMachine mirrors the same functionality that was announced for Vista about a week ago, and everything else is an upgrade rather than anything really new. I was expecting more from the desktop switching, but I have a feeling that will look much different when it's actually released.
But since there is some other stuff planned, then it's best to wait and see what they come up with, before declaring it a dud.
Looks like a nice solid revision so far, but not much else.
.. and given the universal unpopularity of Microsoft's Flip3D interface, I was surprised to see it showing up in the UI for TimeMachine.
addicted44
Mar 31, 04:57 PM
They have financial motives, and they have to protect their interests. This is right. However, the moment you mention that to a Fandroid, they would go all ballistic about how you are just an Apple fanboy, or a hater.
They have disrespected what Google has done for them and forced Google to clamp down.
Blame the victim, much? Maybe Google shouldn't have been trumpeting its complete openness all day. And maybe they should have, like Apple, said what is allowed and what is not.
They have disrespected what Google has done for them and forced Google to clamp down.
Blame the victim, much? Maybe Google shouldn't have been trumpeting its complete openness all day. And maybe they should have, like Apple, said what is allowed and what is not.
SevenInchScrew
Dec 8, 12:54 PM
^^^ Again, from Sony and referenced in my post 152 (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=11513752&postcount=152)
I'm not arguing, just pointing out what Sony themselves have to say on the subject. Of course, as you progress further into the game, you are going to use more Premium racing models.
I understand that Sony are saying damage is not "unlocked" at some point in the game. And that is correct. When you start the game, there is damage. You can head on crash at 120 into a wall, and your bumper will crumple a little, in a Premium car. But, do this same thing, in the same Premium car, at level 20 and 40 and you will see increasing levels of damage.
So yea, Sony is right that damage itself isn't "unlocked" at some point, but the higher degrees of damage ARE. And not just from using race cars, Premium cars as well. Just like how as you progress, the AI gets slightly less brain-dead, the cars will start to somehow damage more.
I'm not arguing, just pointing out what Sony themselves have to say on the subject. Of course, as you progress further into the game, you are going to use more Premium racing models.
I understand that Sony are saying damage is not "unlocked" at some point in the game. And that is correct. When you start the game, there is damage. You can head on crash at 120 into a wall, and your bumper will crumple a little, in a Premium car. But, do this same thing, in the same Premium car, at level 20 and 40 and you will see increasing levels of damage.
So yea, Sony is right that damage itself isn't "unlocked" at some point, but the higher degrees of damage ARE. And not just from using race cars, Premium cars as well. Just like how as you progress, the AI gets slightly less brain-dead, the cars will start to somehow damage more.
Malligator
Mar 31, 03:49 PM
And the Apple haters do yet another 180...
1. Macs
1995 to 2007: Don't use a Mac. Noone uses Macs.
2007 to Present: Don't use a Mac. Everyone uses a Mac.
2. Apps
1995 to 2/22/2011: Don't use Apple. There is no software and they can't do anything.
2/22 to Present: Apps? Who needs Apps as long as you have a robust UI?
3. Open
2007 to Today: Apple is a walled garden that only stupid lemmings use.
Today going forward: Controlling the OS is necessary and good for the consumer.
1. Macs
1995 to 2007: Don't use a Mac. Noone uses Macs.
2007 to Present: Don't use a Mac. Everyone uses a Mac.
2. Apps
1995 to 2/22/2011: Don't use Apple. There is no software and they can't do anything.
2/22 to Present: Apps? Who needs Apps as long as you have a robust UI?
3. Open
2007 to Today: Apple is a walled garden that only stupid lemmings use.
Today going forward: Controlling the OS is necessary and good for the consumer.
ChrisA
Apr 8, 12:43 AM
I do not intend to be rude, but there is a difference in HDMI cables, no matter what the Internet tells you. Conductors, shielding materials/layers and the way the connectors are put together are a few differentiators. An AudioQuest Coffee cable, for example, which is several hundred dollars ($600 I believe for a 1.5m) is made of pure silver starting with the tips and going the length of the cable. This is not the same as a no name $5 dollar HDMI cable from Amazon.
Yes, but the silver does nothing to improve the signal. HDMI is a digital signal that gets re-clocked at the receiving end. The signal is either inspec or not, there is not "better" or "best". The picture and sound quialty depends only on if the bits got there and nothing else.
Yes, but the silver does nothing to improve the signal. HDMI is a digital signal that gets re-clocked at the receiving end. The signal is either inspec or not, there is not "better" or "best". The picture and sound quialty depends only on if the bits got there and nothing else.
GooMan
Apr 13, 02:26 PM
Please explain this. You'd buy an iPhone 5 with HSPA+, but not one with LTE ? Why ? Makes no sense at all.
Because if Apple release an iPhone 5 with LTE, it will cost more and won't be backwards compatible... right... :rolleyes:
Obviously not a factor.
1) I'm perfectly happy with the data speeds I get on AT&T 3G. I would guess the new 4G phones will suffer in battery life. I don't want to give up battery life for network speed I don't really need. If I had to choose I would choose battery life every time.
2) It's not the cost of the phone, its the cost of the data plan. I would guess it will be like the iPhone 3G launch where AT&T forced you into a 3G plan even if you didn't have 3G coverage in your area. Remember the original $20 iPhone unlimited data plan and how it went away when the new hardware was released?
3) I currently have unlimited data with AT&T which I would like to keep although I've never used > 1.5GB in a month. I doubt very seriously this will be an option with the new "4G" network plans.
4) I can wait for a "4G" phone until there is decent "4G" coverage.
Because if Apple release an iPhone 5 with LTE, it will cost more and won't be backwards compatible... right... :rolleyes:
Obviously not a factor.
1) I'm perfectly happy with the data speeds I get on AT&T 3G. I would guess the new 4G phones will suffer in battery life. I don't want to give up battery life for network speed I don't really need. If I had to choose I would choose battery life every time.
2) It's not the cost of the phone, its the cost of the data plan. I would guess it will be like the iPhone 3G launch where AT&T forced you into a 3G plan even if you didn't have 3G coverage in your area. Remember the original $20 iPhone unlimited data plan and how it went away when the new hardware was released?
3) I currently have unlimited data with AT&T which I would like to keep although I've never used > 1.5GB in a month. I doubt very seriously this will be an option with the new "4G" network plans.
4) I can wait for a "4G" phone until there is decent "4G" coverage.
sjo
Aug 11, 03:34 PM
Well only about 1.25bil out of the +6 actually have cell service and I'd suspect only about 300mil in Eurpoe use cell phones (according to internetworldstats.com estimates 291mil in Europe use the internet... I'd assume cell usage is similiar).
And factor in that the US, Canada and many of the other countries with CDMA service are amongst the most wealthy in the world. Those +150mil customers are nothing to sneeze at.
Well now you ignorant yankie ;) Firstly the mobile phone penetration in Europe is about 99% or maybe slighly more. You should really travel a bit to get some perspective.
And secondly, GSM has user base of over 1 billion while CDMA as you said has some 60m users. Which one you think would be more interesting market to cover for a new mobile phone manufacturer? And there is really no question of "we'll see which one wins" because GSM won a long long time ago, hands down.
And factor in that the US, Canada and many of the other countries with CDMA service are amongst the most wealthy in the world. Those +150mil customers are nothing to sneeze at.
Well now you ignorant yankie ;) Firstly the mobile phone penetration in Europe is about 99% or maybe slighly more. You should really travel a bit to get some perspective.
And secondly, GSM has user base of over 1 billion while CDMA as you said has some 60m users. Which one you think would be more interesting market to cover for a new mobile phone manufacturer? And there is really no question of "we'll see which one wins" because GSM won a long long time ago, hands down.
McKellar
Sep 19, 02:04 AM
What is wrong with you people? Meroms in other brands of laptops haven't, or are only *just* starting to ship, and you people wail that Apple is doomed, when in the worst case scenario, they'll be a few days behind Dell. If they don't ship by next month, then sure, complain, but really, most of those who moan that Apple is "OMG SO OUTDATED MEROM MBPS SHOULD HAVE BEEN RELEASED 2 MONTHS AGO!!!" are out of touch with reality.
Cinch
Aug 11, 11:35 AM
Take a look at the Nokia E61. I just got one to replace my BlackBerry and love it. It's the European version and you have to buy it unlocked ($350 or so) but it works great. Cingular is coming out with a dumbed down version called the E62 but strips away some of the cool features like WiFi. Go figure - an American phone with less features than the one sold in the rest of the world.
With crappy phones and our pathetic broadband infrastructure, you'd think we were Third World rather than a "Superpower."
Yeah, but I rather pay ~30% tax than the 50%+ tax in Europe (fed., state, sales etc).
With crappy phones and our pathetic broadband infrastructure, you'd think we were Third World rather than a "Superpower."
Yeah, but I rather pay ~30% tax than the 50%+ tax in Europe (fed., state, sales etc).
netdog
Aug 12, 02:40 AM
I'll be happy as long as it resurrects the Wild Eep.
aloshka
Apr 25, 03:03 PM
"a perfect storm", "overreaction", "typical for the us to sue.."
... sorry, but in what ways do I benefit by having apple track my whereabouts to the day and meter? why isn't there an opt-in (apart from the general 'eat **** or die' TOU) or at least an opt-out for this? why is it so easy to access the data?
... apple deserves to get a beating for this.
they're known for focussing on the user in terms of design and UI of theirdevices... they should also make the step to focus on their users best interest in terms of privacy and freedom, rather than their own greed.
You obviously missed the point that they do not track anything. It's just a log file on your iphone, it stays with your iphone. I GOT even more news!! I FOUND a file on the iphone that stores text messages. YES PEOPLE text messages. I can read your text messages from this file if I have your phone!! Oh ya, I know you can launch the SMS app, but WHY WOULD APPLE NEED TO STORE TEXT MESSAGES ON MY DEVICE?!?! I'm suing!!
... sorry, but in what ways do I benefit by having apple track my whereabouts to the day and meter? why isn't there an opt-in (apart from the general 'eat **** or die' TOU) or at least an opt-out for this? why is it so easy to access the data?
... apple deserves to get a beating for this.
they're known for focussing on the user in terms of design and UI of theirdevices... they should also make the step to focus on their users best interest in terms of privacy and freedom, rather than their own greed.
You obviously missed the point that they do not track anything. It's just a log file on your iphone, it stays with your iphone. I GOT even more news!! I FOUND a file on the iphone that stores text messages. YES PEOPLE text messages. I can read your text messages from this file if I have your phone!! Oh ya, I know you can launch the SMS app, but WHY WOULD APPLE NEED TO STORE TEXT MESSAGES ON MY DEVICE?!?! I'm suing!!