tigertrainer
Jul 30, 04:05 PM
OMG, I hope this happens. My credit card will leap out of my wallet like a spawning salmon if:
*it had serious iPod functionality
*it had a normal minijack for headphones instead of some annoying proprietary one
*Wifi for use with VoIP like Gizmo Project
*Bluetooth
*iCal and adressbook mobile versions with sync
*Video and Camera with flash, mobile iPhoto
*Imagine built-in camera used in iChat!
I hope Apple goes with their own new network. This way we can tell those greedy-a$$ comunications companies who give us crappy phones, expensive service, and crippled features to ***** off. YES! :D
*it had serious iPod functionality
*it had a normal minijack for headphones instead of some annoying proprietary one
*Wifi for use with VoIP like Gizmo Project
*Bluetooth
*iCal and adressbook mobile versions with sync
*Video and Camera with flash, mobile iPhoto
*Imagine built-in camera used in iChat!
I hope Apple goes with their own new network. This way we can tell those greedy-a$$ comunications companies who give us crappy phones, expensive service, and crippled features to ***** off. YES! :D
Susurs
May 6, 04:23 AM
My subjective view is that it's a 'special message' to the Intel as latter lately imposes it's rules on using cpu's ... no Nvidia chips for example ...
caspersoong
Apr 23, 07:57 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)
This is really nice. But is it really necessary? How many ppi will it be?
This is really nice. But is it really necessary? How many ppi will it be?
Radoo
Apr 18, 03:57 PM
shame really that Apple is resorting to Microsoft-esque tactics. If you can't beat em, just sue em, mentality.
Thats like saying that Coca-Cola should sue Pepsi
Xerox PARC should have aggressively sued Apple when the GUI was becoming commercialized.
NO, Apple did not invent the first GUI Operating System. Xerox made the first GUI in their Alto systems. Xerox only sued (late for that matter) when Apple sued Microsoft for their GUI OS (Windows).
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8b/Xerox_Alto.jpg/240px-Xerox_Alto.jpg
Look's just like an iMac! :eek: almost... Stupid patents... Good for Xerox, too bad that playing fair is not helping these days...:mad:
Thats like saying that Coca-Cola should sue Pepsi
Xerox PARC should have aggressively sued Apple when the GUI was becoming commercialized.
NO, Apple did not invent the first GUI Operating System. Xerox made the first GUI in their Alto systems. Xerox only sued (late for that matter) when Apple sued Microsoft for their GUI OS (Windows).
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/8b/Xerox_Alto.jpg/240px-Xerox_Alto.jpg
Look's just like an iMac! :eek: almost... Stupid patents... Good for Xerox, too bad that playing fair is not helping these days...:mad:
SuperCachetes
May 5, 05:26 AM
Can you cite reliable figures for the cost advantage versus the cost to switch?
Sorry it took so long to respond to this; I assure you it took only a second to Google (this is just the first result I found):
http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/pays-off.html
Sorry it took so long to respond to this; I assure you it took only a second to Google (this is just the first result I found):
http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/pays-off.html
SPUY767
Aug 7, 04:57 PM
Jobs finally delivered on his 3 Ghz promise! ;) :D :D
With the Wicked cooling system that I'm sure these beasts have. It won't be long until some fool writes a firmware patch that boosts the output up to 4G's at least.
With the Wicked cooling system that I'm sure these beasts have. It won't be long until some fool writes a firmware patch that boosts the output up to 4G's at least.
Makosuke
May 6, 05:10 AM
I'm not so much joining in the discussion as publicly recording what I think is going to happen in a few years based not really on this prediction, but the way things are going in general, so that I can point to this post in a few years and either say "I told you so" or "look how clueless I was."
I think this prediction is right, at least in general terms, and while to hardcore geeks it may sound like a terrible idea, I doubt it is, and it makes a great deal of sense to Apple. That said, I expect Apple will continue to sell "pro" systems of some sort based on Intel chips for the foreseeable future, to cover the developer/Photoshop-jockey/video-editor market. They're just not going to sell all that many of them.
This is why the ARM transition will not be like the Intel transition (and remember we're not talking about something happening tomorrow):
For one thing, two years is a lot of time at the rate the ARM architecture has been advancing. Predicting anything about how fast the chips will be in 2013 (or how much Intel will have advanced by then) is difficult.
In the quarter the G5 Power Mac first shipped, back in Apple earned $44M on $1.7B in sales, and shipped 787K Macs. In the quarter the first Intel iMacs shipped, in Apple earned $410M on $4.36B, and sold 1.1M Macs.
In the most recent quarter, Apple's profit was $6B--more than their gross in and almost as much as the entire company's gross for all of 2003--on gross income of close to $25B. They sold 3.76M Macs, and more notably 4.69M iPads and well over 20M small-screen iOS devices. They also have something like $65 billion sitting in the bank, which is ridiculous.
Contrast this with Intel, which in the last quarter was doing extremely well, with gross of $12.8B and net of $3.16B. Or, for that matter, IBM, which had revenue of $24B and earnings of $2.9B.
In Apple was a relatively small-time player that got IBM to design a wicked-fast custom desktop CPU. In 2006 they were a somewhat larger company mostly on account of selling a lot of iPods, and weren't in a strong enough position to get IBM to do what they needed with the PPC architecture to the point it could compete with Intel's upcoming Core architecture. Today their Mac business alone is three times what it was then, it's the only segment of the PC industry actually expanding, and the company is HUGE--twice the size of Intel, in terms of financials. Heck, they could buy a controlling stake in Intel based purely on that company's market cap with cash on hand.
Further, of all those 25M+ iOS devices last quarter, every single one was running an ARM processor. While nearly 4 million Macs is nothing to sneeze at, Apple's bread and butter is iOS and ARM-based systems. They know them, they control the whole package, and they have an in-house CPU team for the architecture. One that, based on performance comparisons with the Xoom, is doing its job quite well. They've also managed to sell these devices at prices so low other companies are having serious trouble matching them, while maintaing very healthy profit margins.
As far as Apple is concerned--and with good reason--iOS on ARM is their future. There's no reason to stop selling Macs, but the market for console-style computers is not likely limited to handhelds and tablets--there's almost certainly a lot of demand in the bigger-laptop-with-a-keyboard space as well as large-screen desktops. With the rate of CPU power increase in ARM chips, within a couple of years they're likely to be powerful enough to comfortably handle desktop tasks, particularly considering that the average user really doesn't have any use for anything more than a basic dual-core system--everything else is for pros and bragging rights.
So, by way of prediction, I'd assume that Apple will continue to beef up its in-house ARM team, and once the desktop-grade chips are in place leverage that to replace what we currently think of as consumer Macs with beefier, larger-screen iOS based devices (or perhaps some iOS/MacOS hybrid thing to better handle indirect input, since pointing at a 27" touchscreen is ridiculous for more than a few minutes).
After all, Apple could--and very will might--dump a few billion dollars of their hoard into advancing the ARM architecture in some way that competitors can't match, and/or building out chip fab capabilities to keep prices low and availability high. Intel's entire R&D budget for 2010 was in the range of $6B, AMD's wasn't much over $1B, and Apple likes to control their own destiny, so it's not out of the question if they can hire good enough people.
I also bet that they will keep some "pro" machines--perhaps even those that'll keep the "Mac" moniker--in the lineup, for people who want more traditional workstation software, since there's still a lucrative market for that. These will presumably use Intel chips, but then who knows--even Microsoft is working on a version of Windows for ARM.
And outside the gamer market or the relatively small number of people who need or want a virtualized Windows environment, I seriously doubt most people will care. After all, it hasn't stopped them from lining up to buy iPads, and I have NEVER heard even the most ardent Windows fanboy rant about Windows with the same fervor as a half-dozen non-technical people I know personally who love their iPad.
Geeks and old-school Macheads like myself will wail and moan, and Apple won't care. If they did, the iPad would have run the MacOS.
In related news, Microsoft is in trouble.
I think this prediction is right, at least in general terms, and while to hardcore geeks it may sound like a terrible idea, I doubt it is, and it makes a great deal of sense to Apple. That said, I expect Apple will continue to sell "pro" systems of some sort based on Intel chips for the foreseeable future, to cover the developer/Photoshop-jockey/video-editor market. They're just not going to sell all that many of them.
This is why the ARM transition will not be like the Intel transition (and remember we're not talking about something happening tomorrow):
For one thing, two years is a lot of time at the rate the ARM architecture has been advancing. Predicting anything about how fast the chips will be in 2013 (or how much Intel will have advanced by then) is difficult.
In the quarter the G5 Power Mac first shipped, back in Apple earned $44M on $1.7B in sales, and shipped 787K Macs. In the quarter the first Intel iMacs shipped, in Apple earned $410M on $4.36B, and sold 1.1M Macs.
In the most recent quarter, Apple's profit was $6B--more than their gross in and almost as much as the entire company's gross for all of 2003--on gross income of close to $25B. They sold 3.76M Macs, and more notably 4.69M iPads and well over 20M small-screen iOS devices. They also have something like $65 billion sitting in the bank, which is ridiculous.
Contrast this with Intel, which in the last quarter was doing extremely well, with gross of $12.8B and net of $3.16B. Or, for that matter, IBM, which had revenue of $24B and earnings of $2.9B.
In Apple was a relatively small-time player that got IBM to design a wicked-fast custom desktop CPU. In 2006 they were a somewhat larger company mostly on account of selling a lot of iPods, and weren't in a strong enough position to get IBM to do what they needed with the PPC architecture to the point it could compete with Intel's upcoming Core architecture. Today their Mac business alone is three times what it was then, it's the only segment of the PC industry actually expanding, and the company is HUGE--twice the size of Intel, in terms of financials. Heck, they could buy a controlling stake in Intel based purely on that company's market cap with cash on hand.
Further, of all those 25M+ iOS devices last quarter, every single one was running an ARM processor. While nearly 4 million Macs is nothing to sneeze at, Apple's bread and butter is iOS and ARM-based systems. They know them, they control the whole package, and they have an in-house CPU team for the architecture. One that, based on performance comparisons with the Xoom, is doing its job quite well. They've also managed to sell these devices at prices so low other companies are having serious trouble matching them, while maintaing very healthy profit margins.
As far as Apple is concerned--and with good reason--iOS on ARM is their future. There's no reason to stop selling Macs, but the market for console-style computers is not likely limited to handhelds and tablets--there's almost certainly a lot of demand in the bigger-laptop-with-a-keyboard space as well as large-screen desktops. With the rate of CPU power increase in ARM chips, within a couple of years they're likely to be powerful enough to comfortably handle desktop tasks, particularly considering that the average user really doesn't have any use for anything more than a basic dual-core system--everything else is for pros and bragging rights.
So, by way of prediction, I'd assume that Apple will continue to beef up its in-house ARM team, and once the desktop-grade chips are in place leverage that to replace what we currently think of as consumer Macs with beefier, larger-screen iOS based devices (or perhaps some iOS/MacOS hybrid thing to better handle indirect input, since pointing at a 27" touchscreen is ridiculous for more than a few minutes).
After all, Apple could--and very will might--dump a few billion dollars of their hoard into advancing the ARM architecture in some way that competitors can't match, and/or building out chip fab capabilities to keep prices low and availability high. Intel's entire R&D budget for 2010 was in the range of $6B, AMD's wasn't much over $1B, and Apple likes to control their own destiny, so it's not out of the question if they can hire good enough people.
I also bet that they will keep some "pro" machines--perhaps even those that'll keep the "Mac" moniker--in the lineup, for people who want more traditional workstation software, since there's still a lucrative market for that. These will presumably use Intel chips, but then who knows--even Microsoft is working on a version of Windows for ARM.
And outside the gamer market or the relatively small number of people who need or want a virtualized Windows environment, I seriously doubt most people will care. After all, it hasn't stopped them from lining up to buy iPads, and I have NEVER heard even the most ardent Windows fanboy rant about Windows with the same fervor as a half-dozen non-technical people I know personally who love their iPad.
Geeks and old-school Macheads like myself will wail and moan, and Apple won't care. If they did, the iPad would have run the MacOS.
In related news, Microsoft is in trouble.
moobookpro
Sep 16, 04:04 PM
Aye, and I have noticed that Apple was very smart to market their line as notebooks rather than laptops. A notebook you put on a table and have less of a chance of getting another "McDonald's hot coffee burns lap" suit. :eek:
***Waiting for the "Caution: This notebook may burn you lap" warning sticker***
I would just like to note (yes, pun intended) that all computer manufacturers refer to their portable computers as notebooks. The only people that still call them laptops are consumers.
***Waiting for the "Caution: This notebook may burn you lap" warning sticker***
I would just like to note (yes, pun intended) that all computer manufacturers refer to their portable computers as notebooks. The only people that still call them laptops are consumers.
wclyffe
Nov 22, 08:10 AM
I can't believe your BlueAnt is working for you. Yes my phone is a 3Gs. I had other replies to an earlier post that indicated that Apple did not allow some of the BT technology to work on their phone.
I will try and "pair" again to iPhone and see if it works. I agree with you re hitting a button on the visor.
I've had no issues with the BluAnt at all. That said, Voice Control occasionally comes up with some pretty funny ways that it pronounces names, and you have to pronounce it that way if you want that particular name to come up.
I will try and "pair" again to iPhone and see if it works. I agree with you re hitting a button on the visor.
I've had no issues with the BluAnt at all. That said, Voice Control occasionally comes up with some pretty funny ways that it pronounces names, and you have to pronounce it that way if you want that particular name to come up.
SiliconAddict
Nov 23, 12:46 PM
Oh yah, there was one. It was a CD player that was soooo bad hardy a soul bought it and it's barely remembered. I think it happened while Steve was at Next abd the idjuts were in control of of Apple. It may have set a record for a short lifespan, not counting Microsoft's vaporware that was never spawned.
o.O Mactracker has no information on this. Do you have links? I would be very interested in seeing a pict of it.
o.O Mactracker has no information on this. Do you have links? I would be very interested in seeing a pict of it.
SandynJosh
Apr 26, 03:56 PM
I love that argument - who told Apple to only make 1 phone? Nobody it was their decision. This is PC vs Mac all over again - history repeating itself.
I can't wait to see how Steve Jobs spins this somehow at WWDC - my guess is he'll throw iPod Touches and iPads into their numbers so it doesn't look as horrible as the Nielsen chart shows.
At the end of the day, the truth hurts - Android is the new defacto platform for mobile and that means developers, developers, developers.
I suspect you're just trolling because I can't believe that you're as clueless as you pretend.
The Android platform is so highly fractured that to write an app for one Android phone doesn't mean you got the platform covered... far from it. Apple's IOS platform is huge, and has only shrunk in market share by a couple points (PIM is the one taking a beating) since the last survey.
The controlled environment of the IOS, which extends to iPods, and iPads, makes for a more profitable platform for developers. This not wishful dreaming, it's a fact any developer will tell you, or you can jump into the archives and learn for yourself.
I can't wait to see how Steve Jobs spins this somehow at WWDC - my guess is he'll throw iPod Touches and iPads into their numbers so it doesn't look as horrible as the Nielsen chart shows.
At the end of the day, the truth hurts - Android is the new defacto platform for mobile and that means developers, developers, developers.
I suspect you're just trolling because I can't believe that you're as clueless as you pretend.
The Android platform is so highly fractured that to write an app for one Android phone doesn't mean you got the platform covered... far from it. Apple's IOS platform is huge, and has only shrunk in market share by a couple points (PIM is the one taking a beating) since the last survey.
The controlled environment of the IOS, which extends to iPods, and iPads, makes for a more profitable platform for developers. This not wishful dreaming, it's a fact any developer will tell you, or you can jump into the archives and learn for yourself.
ChickenSwartz
Aug 2, 09:50 PM
Ok, that makes sense. I guess Conroe is the only Core 2 Duo chip that's available today. (And Woodcrest but it's marketed as Xeon 5100)
Merom is also availible today.
They have been shipping them for a few weeks now. Even a a few weeks before they were introduced. Intel just says that they won't show up on the market until the end of August.
I think Apple could have their out before that. If the rumors are ture, they just have to replace the Merom chip in the assembly line in place of Yonah. They already have the computers built (more or less).
Merom is also availible today.
They have been shipping them for a few weeks now. Even a a few weeks before they were introduced. Intel just says that they won't show up on the market until the end of August.
I think Apple could have their out before that. If the rumors are ture, they just have to replace the Merom chip in the assembly line in place of Yonah. They already have the computers built (more or less).
RollTide1017
Mar 29, 01:35 PM
And if you stop subscribing?...What happens to your music files stored in the cloud?
One would be an idiot to not have a local backup of stuff they store in the "cloud."
One would be an idiot to not have a local backup of stuff they store in the "cloud."
stuffradio
May 7, 02:58 PM
Not sure what you guys think about this, but I think it would make sense on the iPhone if they somehow integrate iAds into it... otherwise I'm not sure why they would take a $99 service and make it free.
rdrr
Sep 15, 06:32 PM
One other feature I would like to see in MBP would be an embedded evdo chip. That most likely won't happen but would be really nice.
Daveoc64
May 4, 03:15 PM
That's NOT the context here.
I'm the one that raised the point in the first place! I think I set the context!
And don't tell me you take the EULA seriously.
I do. I don't have any need to violate it. I only have one Mac.
All of my computers have a fully licenced copy of Windows XP or 7 on them.
I'm the one that raised the point in the first place! I think I set the context!
And don't tell me you take the EULA seriously.
I do. I don't have any need to violate it. I only have one Mac.
All of my computers have a fully licenced copy of Windows XP or 7 on them.
RawBert
Apr 18, 04:37 PM
The side by side shots look like Nike Air Jordans next to some fake-ass Jordan ProWings. :)
Kalach
May 6, 02:16 AM
I don't like the sound of this at all! :(
balamw
Apr 10, 09:54 AM
Dammit, I fell at the last hurdle. I get 288 but then clicked 2 by mistake!
There's another acronym/mnemonic for that.
PEBCAK. Problem Exists Between Chair and Keyboard.
B
There's another acronym/mnemonic for that.
PEBCAK. Problem Exists Between Chair and Keyboard.
B
dba7dba
Apr 7, 02:43 PM
This is what Sammy, HP, LG, Moto, et al need to be competing against. They've already lost to the iPad. The war is over. Don't lose the next war against Apple's next big thing.
I can say CONFIDENTLY that the war is NOT over. It's been what 2 years? No way. Apple may have the upper hand in the battle but has NOT won the war.
I can say CONFIDENTLY that the war is NOT over. It's been what 2 years? No way. Apple may have the upper hand in the battle but has NOT won the war.
balamw
Apr 10, 09:54 AM
Dammit, I fell at the last hurdle. I get 288 but then clicked 2 by mistake!
There's another acronym/mnemonic for that.
PEBCAK. Problem Exists Between Chair and Keyboard.
B
There's another acronym/mnemonic for that.
PEBCAK. Problem Exists Between Chair and Keyboard.
B
hobo.hopkins
Mar 29, 04:48 PM
A company like Apple could easily, make and assemble products here, the profit margin on an iPhone is around 60%, but if they did that then there profit margin would only be 50%, corporate and political greed.
Remind me of why a company isn't entitled to make as much money as possible? Apple, along with most any company, could theoretically absorb the increased costs and thus make less money. The question is why would they do that?
Remind me of why a company isn't entitled to make as much money as possible? Apple, along with most any company, could theoretically absorb the increased costs and thus make less money. The question is why would they do that?
daneoni
Jul 23, 07:01 PM
Don't do it man! You deserve better!
lol...lets hope it doesnt come to that.
lol...lets hope it doesnt come to that.
oscarmacca
Apr 24, 03:45 AM
I'm not impressed if this is where the iMac display is potentially going , the current GPUs can barely drive the resolutions they have now in anything other than simple desktop apps . , can you imagine what video card you would need to drive a game (say portal 2 which has low to modest requirements) at 30fps + on a screen with 3200 or higher resloution ? Well whatever that GPU is , apple will ship with the one released 2 years ago and half the RAM it shipped with on the PC .
I love the mac OS , I love the mac design , I hate the "last years tech with a shiney shell" we seem to have to put up with , super high res screens and faster I/O ports are all well and good , but put a decent GPU in now the mac is becoming a contender as a home gaming platform .
Think I ranted a bit then , sorry :rolleyes:
Good post.
I love the mac OS , I love the mac design , I hate the "last years tech with a shiney shell" we seem to have to put up with , super high res screens and faster I/O ports are all well and good , but put a decent GPU in now the mac is becoming a contender as a home gaming platform .
Think I ranted a bit then , sorry :rolleyes:
Good post.
