kenaustus
Mar 29, 12:02 PM
Basically the prediction is that the combined Symbian & Windows phone market will fall from 26%+ to 21%. And how much did MS pay for that market share decrease?
Overall I believe that Apple will retain a very strong (and very profitable) position, some of the Android phone makers will fall to the way side (just like in the PC markets) and RIM will fall a lot more than is shown.
The major challenge for some of these companies will be the limited funds available for R&D, making it far more difficult for them to maintain a strong market position.
Overall I believe that Apple will retain a very strong (and very profitable) position, some of the Android phone makers will fall to the way side (just like in the PC markets) and RIM will fall a lot more than is shown.
The major challenge for some of these companies will be the limited funds available for R&D, making it far more difficult for them to maintain a strong market position.
bloodycape
Jul 16, 03:33 AM
1st of all I said Apple not IBM or AMD. AMD is going to get a through ass kicking for the next 12-18 months till K8L comes out. The Turion X2 is a flop(that's also 6 months late) It's so bad for AMD that they are practically having a fire sale on X2/A64's come the 24th. Let's not even go there with IBM they are too busy making toy CPU's for M$ , and talk about the nightmare IBM/Sony are having with the Cell yields(what are they like 20-30%).lol:D
I got do a firmware upgrade and get on that X2 sales action. I just hope it will be fairly priced like the non X2's.
Opps forgot to post the cnet review. http://reviews.cnet.com/Dell_XPS_700_Intel_Core_2_Extreme_X6800/4505-3118_7-31972975.html?tag=cnetfd.sd
I got do a firmware upgrade and get on that X2 sales action. I just hope it will be fairly priced like the non X2's.
Opps forgot to post the cnet review. http://reviews.cnet.com/Dell_XPS_700_Intel_Core_2_Extreme_X6800/4505-3118_7-31972975.html?tag=cnetfd.sd
uv23
Sep 12, 09:20 PM
Apple's whole new "black is top of the line" trend is thoroughly idiotic. I literally removed my credit card from my wallet when I read on the event stream that Apple had released an 8gb nano, then replaced it when I read on about the 8gb model being black only. I hate black electronics. I want an aluminum 8gb iPod to match my PowerBook. Is that so much to ask?? Fine, if they want to only allow black for 8gb, but why limit us. Stupid stupid stupid.:mad:
Mango Juice
Apr 25, 01:10 PM
I think this 'reliable confirmation' is about the Macbook's, not the Macbook Pro's. The Macbook redesign wasn't very future-proof and is similar to the older ones, and the MBP unibody is pretty much age-less and hasn't been out for very long. So...unibody/carbon fibre Macbook's seems more likely to me, rather than another MBP redesign.
cmaier
Nov 13, 08:48 PM
Do you believe that Google Android apps are a free for all and that apps are never rejected? Do you believe that Google is any different than any other company when comes to protecting their IP? Google maps API for example, cannot be used in third party applications that offer turn by turn navigation.
To be fair, that's quite possibly a limitation imposed on them by navteq/teleatlas.
To be fair, that's quite possibly a limitation imposed on them by navteq/teleatlas.
Pravius
Apr 22, 09:50 AM
LMAO...are you serious? You find another carrier in the US that has unlimited data and has the iPhone?. Don't say Verizon because Verizon has already stated the unlimited plans were TEMP and only to draw in new customers at the launch of their iPhone. They made clear, those plans will be going away.
That statement is pure speculation and I have not seen that anywhere *official*. Until it actually happens, it hasn't happened.
That statement is pure speculation and I have not seen that anywhere *official*. Until it actually happens, it hasn't happened.
Multimedia
Sep 12, 04:46 PM
The way I understood, it was capable of playin that resolution in mp4, but not when using AVC/H.264...Right. Mac res for H.264 WAS 320x240 way too small - only the iPod screen res. So H.264 was unpopular because of this limit. Now if the res limit works on teh existing base of 5G 1st gen Video iPods this is HUGE and changes the game completely. See above I am testing this theory now and will report on the result in about a half hour.
peharri
Sep 18, 07:33 AM
OK. hang on. back the f&6king truck up.
maybe we're backwards here. but i have NEVER, EVER heard of ANY kind of phone service where INCOMING calls are anything BUT free (excluding reverse-charge, obviously).
No, that's not true, though the way it's presented often makes you think it is.
Sprint and a company called MetroPCS are one of the few companies in the entire world where incoming calls are in practice are "at no extra charge" (unless those calls are long distance.)
That is, someone can call someone with a Sprint phone on a "free unlimited incoming" plan, and NEITHER PARTY will be charged (subject to restrictions, namely that mobile party isn't roaming, and the caller has unlimited outgoing calls to at the very least the mobile party's area/exchange code. This is the default with US landlines.)
(I'm being picky with words here, because it's even worse than how I'm describing. I'm not aware of a single phone company in the entire world that offers free calls of any description save for 911/112/999 type calls. Every phone company in the world at the very least requires you pay a subscription fee before receiving any kind of unmetered service. Ok, I note the complaints I'm being picky and everyone "knows" what "free" means, but I think the word "free" is overused.)
Most other operators in the US offer unlimited airtime at nights, weekends, and often when calls are placed between mobiles on the same network, so the other networks also provide incoming calls "at no extra charge" for a specific subset of incoming calls.
Now, you're probably not in the US, which explains your confusion as to why someone would be wording this as it was, but don't think that because where you are the callee doesn't pay for incoming calls, that this means the calls are free. They're not. They're paid for by the caller, often at absurdly high rates. Do you never make calls to mobiles?
You are just as likely to be receiving a call as making one to a mobile phone (ie regardless of who pays, YOU are likely to pay it. You receive calls on your cellphone, and you call people who have cellphones), so when considering the total cost of ownership, the price of incoming calls, whether paid for by the caller or callee, makes a difference in terms of the use of mobile phones.
Because this is likely to descend to a debate on the subject of "Caller pays" or "Mobile user pays", the US system makes it harder to have a workable low-budget pay-as-you-go system, but once service-spends exceed around $40 a month, the provided tariffs are generally much, much, better value than that provided outside of the US. So there's a higher barrier to entry, but once you can afford it, even the most avid talkers can use it as their default phone. A typical tariff in the US is $50 a month for unlimited nights, weekends, and calls between same-network mobiles, plus 500 minutes for other call types. A typical tariff in the UK appears to be something approximating to 20-70c a minute for outgoing calls (the lower end for same network or landline calls, higher for calls to mobiles), with calls charged by the second and no, practical, monthly minimum call spends and everyone paying just for the calls they make. Someone who doesn't use a mobile phone very often would appreciate the latter, someone who wants to use it instead of a landline would appreciate the former.
maybe we're backwards here. but i have NEVER, EVER heard of ANY kind of phone service where INCOMING calls are anything BUT free (excluding reverse-charge, obviously).
No, that's not true, though the way it's presented often makes you think it is.
Sprint and a company called MetroPCS are one of the few companies in the entire world where incoming calls are in practice are "at no extra charge" (unless those calls are long distance.)
That is, someone can call someone with a Sprint phone on a "free unlimited incoming" plan, and NEITHER PARTY will be charged (subject to restrictions, namely that mobile party isn't roaming, and the caller has unlimited outgoing calls to at the very least the mobile party's area/exchange code. This is the default with US landlines.)
(I'm being picky with words here, because it's even worse than how I'm describing. I'm not aware of a single phone company in the entire world that offers free calls of any description save for 911/112/999 type calls. Every phone company in the world at the very least requires you pay a subscription fee before receiving any kind of unmetered service. Ok, I note the complaints I'm being picky and everyone "knows" what "free" means, but I think the word "free" is overused.)
Most other operators in the US offer unlimited airtime at nights, weekends, and often when calls are placed between mobiles on the same network, so the other networks also provide incoming calls "at no extra charge" for a specific subset of incoming calls.
Now, you're probably not in the US, which explains your confusion as to why someone would be wording this as it was, but don't think that because where you are the callee doesn't pay for incoming calls, that this means the calls are free. They're not. They're paid for by the caller, often at absurdly high rates. Do you never make calls to mobiles?
You are just as likely to be receiving a call as making one to a mobile phone (ie regardless of who pays, YOU are likely to pay it. You receive calls on your cellphone, and you call people who have cellphones), so when considering the total cost of ownership, the price of incoming calls, whether paid for by the caller or callee, makes a difference in terms of the use of mobile phones.
Because this is likely to descend to a debate on the subject of "Caller pays" or "Mobile user pays", the US system makes it harder to have a workable low-budget pay-as-you-go system, but once service-spends exceed around $40 a month, the provided tariffs are generally much, much, better value than that provided outside of the US. So there's a higher barrier to entry, but once you can afford it, even the most avid talkers can use it as their default phone. A typical tariff in the US is $50 a month for unlimited nights, weekends, and calls between same-network mobiles, plus 500 minutes for other call types. A typical tariff in the UK appears to be something approximating to 20-70c a minute for outgoing calls (the lower end for same network or landline calls, higher for calls to mobiles), with calls charged by the second and no, practical, monthly minimum call spends and everyone paying just for the calls they make. Someone who doesn't use a mobile phone very often would appreciate the latter, someone who wants to use it instead of a landline would appreciate the former.
j800r
Apr 22, 10:06 AM
If the cloud is left as just an option, then i'm all for it. So long as the iTunes store also exists in the format it is today. I have a massive music collection currently sitting at around 140GB and constantly growing. I like owning copies of the music. Not to do anything illegal with, but I like being responsible for the music. I can already take my music collection with my wherever I go. It's called my iPod Classic. I already have my entire iTunes library backed up. It's called Time Machine. I think SYNCHING via the cloud and having it there as just an option is a great idea, for people who want it, but if they made it cloud only, and took away the ability to download then that would only increase the level of piracy in time. Very much like DRM did. Record companies thought this was a great idea to restrict usage and prevent piracy. Turned out more people were turning to pirated music because of the restrictions that had been placed on them.
To sum up. The cloud should be an OPTION, not compulsory.
To sum up. The cloud should be an OPTION, not compulsory.
aswitcher
Aug 31, 06:05 PM
...and 5 years later,
5 year anniversary iPod...of course.
5 year anniversary iPod...of course.
bdj21ya
Oct 12, 04:43 PM
Dude... That has to be the most racist thing I have ever read! :eek:
Evolved???? And comparing humans to natural selection of animals????
I don't see the point of your incredulity (come on man using 4 question marks twice in one post. That's totally flagrant).
We aren't any different. Social interaction is just another aspect of biological evolution. It all breaks down to reactions between atoms and there's nothing racist about it. Are you going to tell me that the evolution of animals doesn't depend on their social interactions?
Evolved???? And comparing humans to natural selection of animals????
I don't see the point of your incredulity (come on man using 4 question marks twice in one post. That's totally flagrant).
We aren't any different. Social interaction is just another aspect of biological evolution. It all breaks down to reactions between atoms and there's nothing racist about it. Are you going to tell me that the evolution of animals doesn't depend on their social interactions?
dsnort
Sep 19, 06:26 PM
I can't wait until I can get access to movies from around the world instead of just insipid Hollywood crap.
And a hearty Amen and hell yeah for that!
And a hearty Amen and hell yeah for that!
iDisk
Mar 23, 04:20 PM
Personally I find it hard to believe that so drunk as to warrant avoiding a checkpoint will be collected enough to use the app effectively in the first place.
Miles you make a great point... You also confirm that Apple better pull them, its a pointless app because if your so drunk then you can't operate a phone let alone an app.
Miles you make a great point... You also confirm that Apple better pull them, its a pointless app because if your so drunk then you can't operate a phone let alone an app.
blondepianist
Apr 11, 06:39 AM
Care to actually show me what app that will actually do what I was talking about? :rolleyes:
I want to play music from iTunes on my Mac as the source, and multiple airplay devices as the target. Currently I can only play to Airport Expresses and Apple TVs (and upcoming Airplay certified speakers). I want Apple to include all iOS devices to that list of target devices.
Some people have already mentioned AirFoil for audio, and there's AirView for video.
I want to play music from iTunes on my Mac as the source, and multiple airplay devices as the target. Currently I can only play to Airport Expresses and Apple TVs (and upcoming Airplay certified speakers). I want Apple to include all iOS devices to that list of target devices.
Some people have already mentioned AirFoil for audio, and there's AirView for video.
JayLenochiniMac
Apr 4, 12:42 PM
From article (http://www.10news.com/news/27421748/detail.html):
The male suspects and their alleged female accomplice then got into a silver Acura that crashed while still inside the shopping center's parking lot, Facicci said, noting that one of the men was driving and he died in the crash. He appears to have been killed by a bullet that went through the passenger window, Chula Vista Police said.
This explains the headshot as the driver was sitting in the car and they were likely still firing at the guard while attempting to get away.
The male suspects and their alleged female accomplice then got into a silver Acura that crashed while still inside the shopping center's parking lot, Facicci said, noting that one of the men was driving and he died in the crash. He appears to have been killed by a bullet that went through the passenger window, Chula Vista Police said.
This explains the headshot as the driver was sitting in the car and they were likely still firing at the guard while attempting to get away.
theelysium
May 3, 04:08 PM
I think there is an error on the iMac performance page.
It shows:
For i5
283912
Then for i7
283913
Shouldn't it show faster performance for the i7?:confused:
I sent an email to someone who works on their website asking them to double check that.:D
I thught was strange as well at first, but I believe that the comparison is between i5 1st gen vs 2nd gen and i7 1st gen vs 2nd gen.
Perhaps they're comparing the old i7 to the new i7?
I think Fraaaa is correct. I re-read the quote at the bottom which shows what they compared. They don't say specifically say how they conducted it, but they say the different models and there are two for each of course. The logical answer is that the i5 got a bigger performance boos then the i7, but Apple should have made that chart clearer and also offered another chart showing how much faster the NEW i5 was to the NEW i7. Having a third chart in the diagram would have easily cleared up any confusion when reading it.:cool:
It shows:
For i5
283912
Then for i7
283913
Shouldn't it show faster performance for the i7?:confused:
I sent an email to someone who works on their website asking them to double check that.:D
I thught was strange as well at first, but I believe that the comparison is between i5 1st gen vs 2nd gen and i7 1st gen vs 2nd gen.
Perhaps they're comparing the old i7 to the new i7?
I think Fraaaa is correct. I re-read the quote at the bottom which shows what they compared. They don't say specifically say how they conducted it, but they say the different models and there are two for each of course. The logical answer is that the i5 got a bigger performance boos then the i7, but Apple should have made that chart clearer and also offered another chart showing how much faster the NEW i5 was to the NEW i7. Having a third chart in the diagram would have easily cleared up any confusion when reading it.:cool:
La Porta
Apr 4, 11:44 AM
Wow, that's awesome! Good example for other criminals.
musiclover137
Aug 23, 10:17 PM
there goes all those iTunes sales:rolleyes:
I hope you're joking about that. iTunes is not about making money for apple
I hope you're joking about that. iTunes is not about making money for apple
iBorg20181
Sep 14, 09:27 AM
What is it with some of you guys? Does hope spring eternal, or what!
Apple could be at a medical convention to promote the new artificial Apple iHeart and some of you would be jumping up and down screaming: "Yahoo, this means MBP updates".
LOL - "oh, and one more thing ... the iHeart!!!" I love it!!!
:cool:
iBorg
Apple could be at a medical convention to promote the new artificial Apple iHeart and some of you would be jumping up and down screaming: "Yahoo, this means MBP updates".
LOL - "oh, and one more thing ... the iHeart!!!" I love it!!!
:cool:
iBorg
cmaier
Nov 14, 10:16 AM
I'm just a regular iPhone user...not a developer. I just want my phone work. And I want the apps to be fully vetted and tested before they are available for download. RA's action doesn't make me dislike the iPhone, Mac computers, or Apple. In fact, quite the opposite. It makes RA look childish. I say...good riddance. Oh, and I'm also now less likely to purchase other software from RA. Just sayin'
Then you're missing out. RA is a very highly regarded Mac developer.
And apple's actions here don't improve quality - they reduce it,
Then you're missing out. RA is a very highly regarded Mac developer.
And apple's actions here don't improve quality - they reduce it,
Teddy's
Sep 14, 12:27 PM
A Photographers event, eh?
I want to dig deep into photography. Last week I went to a bookstore and I was looking for Digital Photography books. What I found was something terrible: lots of books featuring Adobe Photoshop, Camera Raw plugins, Adjustment of curves, RGB's, clone pixels, RAW and more RAW books.
I got really frustrated because, even though I understand that RAW format, I find everything just out of mind. It is so complicated... hey! I just want to edit my pictures with something easier like iPhoto without something complicated like Photoshop's Camera RAW. I found Aperture easier than PS. I tried it in an Apple Store with a MBP 17-inch like mine and it was sloooooooooow! But it is fine... I can deal with that, I think. What about an upgrade of Aperture where it is optimized and faster? I would really hate if they do a software upgrade and they make Aperture slower on Apple's previous (to C2D) hardware. The other part of the story is that I would like a gorgeous 20+ widescreen display, I don't care about an iSight built-in.
So maybe this is the time for good Photo-products upgrades...
I want to dig deep into photography. Last week I went to a bookstore and I was looking for Digital Photography books. What I found was something terrible: lots of books featuring Adobe Photoshop, Camera Raw plugins, Adjustment of curves, RGB's, clone pixels, RAW and more RAW books.
I got really frustrated because, even though I understand that RAW format, I find everything just out of mind. It is so complicated... hey! I just want to edit my pictures with something easier like iPhoto without something complicated like Photoshop's Camera RAW. I found Aperture easier than PS. I tried it in an Apple Store with a MBP 17-inch like mine and it was sloooooooooow! But it is fine... I can deal with that, I think. What about an upgrade of Aperture where it is optimized and faster? I would really hate if they do a software upgrade and they make Aperture slower on Apple's previous (to C2D) hardware. The other part of the story is that I would like a gorgeous 20+ widescreen display, I don't care about an iSight built-in.
So maybe this is the time for good Photo-products upgrades...
fawlty
Sep 13, 09:36 PM
I assume the screen would be a touch screen. I would hate to start dialing numbers using the click wheel.
I can remember when all phones used a wheel for dialing numbers...
I can remember when all phones used a wheel for dialing numbers...
edcrosay
Oct 12, 11:57 PM
I'm glad this isn't in an 8gb variety... because I will definatly start to regret the purchase of my black one.
MacPhreak
Oct 12, 03:45 PM
Ha ha, You are nuts. Let me tell you how it works.
Nobody gets rich by curing a disease. That is why diabetes, AIDS, HIV etc are all treated with "Keep you alive but not cure you drugs" that you have to buy for the rest of your life. The government and drug companies are in it together and are pure evil. Ain't nobody going to cure anything unless they can keep making money doing it. Get it? Good.
So how's your Polio treating you?
Nobody gets rich by curing a disease. That is why diabetes, AIDS, HIV etc are all treated with "Keep you alive but not cure you drugs" that you have to buy for the rest of your life. The government and drug companies are in it together and are pure evil. Ain't nobody going to cure anything unless they can keep making money doing it. Get it? Good.
So how's your Polio treating you?