layte
Mar 31, 03:58 PM
First, I have a Dell Streak. Wanted to see what the fuss was about. Took a year for the official Froyo release to appear. Yeah, fragmentation exists.
(I appreciate Android on the Streak, but GOOD GOD does it feel like a laggy piece of software compared to my iPhone and iPad. It has widgets and tons of convenient apps for pirating software or games (no... I own ALL those ROMS)... but I digress.)
So, Android unifies. Google forces handset/tablet manufacturers to adopt a stock OS interface. How will they differentiate themselves? What incentive, beyond a free OS, will there be to creating "phone B" that looks just like "phone A". This is where Google will shoot itself in the foot. The less the carriers and handset manufacturers can customize, the less incentive they have to launch on Android. Heck, just emulate Android if you want the apps, right RIM?
Weren't there waves a few weeks about about Motorola wanting its own OS? I'd want to control my own destiny. This is creating a "walled garden" (Andy as caretaker) for the device manufacturers/carriers, and they're the ones that Google needs to be pushing the platform.
The thing is, if handset manufacturers want to crap up a handset with their own gunk they are free to do so still. They will have to wait longer than has been the case (is there an echo in here?) but it is still possible. This isn't Google completely shutting off access, just them making things a bit harder (some will think this is a good thing, some wont).
Perhaps they can differentiate with hardware, or custom applications (just not anything that messes with the base OS by the looks of things). Horrible skins need to die a death, even hardcore fandroids would agree with that.
(I appreciate Android on the Streak, but GOOD GOD does it feel like a laggy piece of software compared to my iPhone and iPad. It has widgets and tons of convenient apps for pirating software or games (no... I own ALL those ROMS)... but I digress.)
So, Android unifies. Google forces handset/tablet manufacturers to adopt a stock OS interface. How will they differentiate themselves? What incentive, beyond a free OS, will there be to creating "phone B" that looks just like "phone A". This is where Google will shoot itself in the foot. The less the carriers and handset manufacturers can customize, the less incentive they have to launch on Android. Heck, just emulate Android if you want the apps, right RIM?
Weren't there waves a few weeks about about Motorola wanting its own OS? I'd want to control my own destiny. This is creating a "walled garden" (Andy as caretaker) for the device manufacturers/carriers, and they're the ones that Google needs to be pushing the platform.
The thing is, if handset manufacturers want to crap up a handset with their own gunk they are free to do so still. They will have to wait longer than has been the case (is there an echo in here?) but it is still possible. This isn't Google completely shutting off access, just them making things a bit harder (some will think this is a good thing, some wont).
Perhaps they can differentiate with hardware, or custom applications (just not anything that messes with the base OS by the looks of things). Horrible skins need to die a death, even hardcore fandroids would agree with that.
layte
Mar 31, 03:58 PM
First, I have a Dell Streak. Wanted to see what the fuss was about. Took a year for the official Froyo release to appear. Yeah, fragmentation exists.
(I appreciate Android on the Streak, but GOOD GOD does it feel like a laggy piece of software compared to my iPhone and iPad. It has widgets and tons of convenient apps for pirating software or games (no... I own ALL those ROMS)... but I digress.)
So, Android unifies. Google forces handset/tablet manufacturers to adopt a stock OS interface. How will they differentiate themselves? What incentive, beyond a free OS, will there be to creating "phone B" that looks just like "phone A". This is where Google will shoot itself in the foot. The less the carriers and handset manufacturers can customize, the less incentive they have to launch on Android. Heck, just emulate Android if you want the apps, right RIM?
Weren't there waves a few weeks about about Motorola wanting its own OS? I'd want to control my own destiny. This is creating a "walled garden" (Andy as caretaker) for the device manufacturers/carriers, and they're the ones that Google needs to be pushing the platform.
The thing is, if handset manufacturers want to crap up a handset with their own gunk they are free to do so still. They will have to wait longer than has been the case (is there an echo in here?) but it is still possible. This isn't Google completely shutting off access, just them making things a bit harder (some will think this is a good thing, some wont).
Perhaps they can differentiate with hardware, or custom applications (just not anything that messes with the base OS by the looks of things). Horrible skins need to die a death, even hardcore fandroids would agree with that.
(I appreciate Android on the Streak, but GOOD GOD does it feel like a laggy piece of software compared to my iPhone and iPad. It has widgets and tons of convenient apps for pirating software or games (no... I own ALL those ROMS)... but I digress.)
So, Android unifies. Google forces handset/tablet manufacturers to adopt a stock OS interface. How will they differentiate themselves? What incentive, beyond a free OS, will there be to creating "phone B" that looks just like "phone A". This is where Google will shoot itself in the foot. The less the carriers and handset manufacturers can customize, the less incentive they have to launch on Android. Heck, just emulate Android if you want the apps, right RIM?
Weren't there waves a few weeks about about Motorola wanting its own OS? I'd want to control my own destiny. This is creating a "walled garden" (Andy as caretaker) for the device manufacturers/carriers, and they're the ones that Google needs to be pushing the platform.
The thing is, if handset manufacturers want to crap up a handset with their own gunk they are free to do so still. They will have to wait longer than has been the case (is there an echo in here?) but it is still possible. This isn't Google completely shutting off access, just them making things a bit harder (some will think this is a good thing, some wont).
Perhaps they can differentiate with hardware, or custom applications (just not anything that messes with the base OS by the looks of things). Horrible skins need to die a death, even hardcore fandroids would agree with that.
11thIndian
Apr 5, 10:17 PM
I doubt Apple will ship a new version of FCP before they ship lion, there are simply no real video editor APIs in Snow Leopard that are capable of 64 bit, QT Kit is a joke.
HOWEVER, according to the developer page for Lion there will be a brand new A/V API in Lion that will be 64 bit and FCP will most likely be written in that.
I guess they could back port the entire API to Snow Leopard, but I wouldn't count on it.
Rumor is that new FCP will be based on A/V Foundation, leaving the legacy QT Kit limitations behind, and negating the need to wait for Lion for 64bit.
http://www.philiphodgetts.com/2011/02/a-new-64-bit-final-cut-pro/
HOWEVER, according to the developer page for Lion there will be a brand new A/V API in Lion that will be 64 bit and FCP will most likely be written in that.
I guess they could back port the entire API to Snow Leopard, but I wouldn't count on it.
Rumor is that new FCP will be based on A/V Foundation, leaving the legacy QT Kit limitations behind, and negating the need to wait for Lion for 64bit.
http://www.philiphodgetts.com/2011/02/a-new-64-bit-final-cut-pro/
slackpacker
Apr 25, 02:42 PM
Not guilty until proven guilty ... your turn to proof that they have the data. There is zero evidence for that, no matter how often you repeat the claim.
Its not that Apple is using this data its how its being used by others. Its Apples job to protect us not allow our private info to be used against us.
SEE >>>> www.cellebrite.com (http://www.cellebrite.com/forensic-products/ufed-physical-pro.html) - forensic-products
Its not that Apple is using this data its how its being used by others. Its Apples job to protect us not allow our private info to be used against us.
SEE >>>> www.cellebrite.com (http://www.cellebrite.com/forensic-products/ufed-physical-pro.html) - forensic-products
QuarterSwede
Apr 25, 01:54 PM
why isn't there an opt-in (apart from the general 'eat **** or die' TOU) or at least an opt-out for this?
It's opt-in. When you first use an app that requests to use location data iOS asks you if that okay and you can deny it. You can also opt out by turning location services off..
why is it so easy to access the data?
Put a pin/password on you phone and encrypt your iTunes backup (it's a simple checkbox in iTunes preferences). You're secure.
I can't possibly see how the plaintiffs can win this one.
It's opt-in. When you first use an app that requests to use location data iOS asks you if that okay and you can deny it. You can also opt out by turning location services off..
why is it so easy to access the data?
Put a pin/password on you phone and encrypt your iTunes backup (it's a simple checkbox in iTunes preferences). You're secure.
I can't possibly see how the plaintiffs can win this one.
QCassidy352
Apr 6, 10:09 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
I have a 13" ultimate of the current generation. The limiting factor for me is the graphics, not the processor. so going to sandy bridge with the intel 3000 would be a less appealing machine for my uses than the current model. It's really too bad the sandy bridge macs are tied to those garbage integrated graphics.
I have a 13" ultimate of the current generation. The limiting factor for me is the graphics, not the processor. so going to sandy bridge with the intel 3000 would be a less appealing machine for my uses than the current model. It's really too bad the sandy bridge macs are tied to those garbage integrated graphics.
Yankee617
Apr 8, 08:11 AM
Weird... I think there's more involved in this than we can imagine.
One thing that comes to my mind is the possibility they were holding their stock to sell it outside the country, as there's been a high demand and higher value to sell overseas.
Yeah... BB could put the extra iPad's up on Ebay and pocket the extra cash.
Not a big deal if its just done at one or two stores, but if its organized at the
corporate level (with lots of creative accounting/reporting in-between) they
could have millions of dollars going straight to their bottom line (or lining
some unscrupulous executive's pockets).
Were those above-quota iPad's being held in-store and sold the next day,
or were they being forwarded/rerouted to another BB location?
I'm still planning to buy my iPad from my local Apple store.
One thing that comes to my mind is the possibility they were holding their stock to sell it outside the country, as there's been a high demand and higher value to sell overseas.
Yeah... BB could put the extra iPad's up on Ebay and pocket the extra cash.
Not a big deal if its just done at one or two stores, but if its organized at the
corporate level (with lots of creative accounting/reporting in-between) they
could have millions of dollars going straight to their bottom line (or lining
some unscrupulous executive's pockets).
Were those above-quota iPad's being held in-store and sold the next day,
or were they being forwarded/rerouted to another BB location?
I'm still planning to buy my iPad from my local Apple store.
Tomaz
Aug 7, 04:38 PM
I'll have to ask my firendly IT guy, but how does the end user access shadow copies?
B
As far as I know he can't, that's the difference. IT has to restore the file for you.
Still, nothing fundamentally new, and definitely not Vista 2.0... ;)
B
As far as I know he can't, that's the difference. IT has to restore the file for you.
Still, nothing fundamentally new, and definitely not Vista 2.0... ;)
RichP
Jul 14, 03:59 PM
Ha, when I posted a while back that using Dell as a guide, Xeon processors were feasible, I was ignored, now it seems totally reasonable...
Anyway, I dont see why people make sure comparisons to Windows machines now that we are running Intel hardware. Apple is not building Windows machines, they are building Apple machines that run OSX. Benchmarks will be made, and at times Apple isnt going to win them. But its the OSX experience, and its stability as a platform, that is going to be a selling point, not the all out speed of the top-of-the-top Intel processor (the highest end PC processors always carry a heavy premium; its difficult to say that the yield of what we are shown as the highest available G5 is similar to the yields intel has for their high end)
I just have my fingers crossed that we see some cool "fast-OS switching" in Leopard with these machines.
Anyway, I dont see why people make sure comparisons to Windows machines now that we are running Intel hardware. Apple is not building Windows machines, they are building Apple machines that run OSX. Benchmarks will be made, and at times Apple isnt going to win them. But its the OSX experience, and its stability as a platform, that is going to be a selling point, not the all out speed of the top-of-the-top Intel processor (the highest end PC processors always carry a heavy premium; its difficult to say that the yield of what we are shown as the highest available G5 is similar to the yields intel has for their high end)
I just have my fingers crossed that we see some cool "fast-OS switching" in Leopard with these machines.
Full of Win
Apr 25, 02:14 PM
Look out Apple...the chattel are beginning to rise. I hope these power-hungry thugs (Apple) get taken to the cleaners. Sad that Apple now views our location as a resource to be exploited.
srxtr
Mar 22, 01:28 PM
What's with all these tablets being advertised in landscape??
I've had the first ipad since it came out last year and I'd say my Portrait to landscape usage ratio is like 70% portrait / 30% landscape.
I view webpages, read the WSJ, NYPost, books, ipod etc.. all in portrait.
Landscape is for tv shows / movies and some games.
Why are these tablets all designed as if the user is going to hold them landscape 90% of the time? Are magazines designed to be held landscape? I don't get these horizontal tablets.
I think the majority of the people use landscape (but don't quote me on that).
Most activities (websites, emails, documents, etc) require scrolling top to bottom, not side to side, so landscape will usually give you a greater view usually.
I've had the first ipad since it came out last year and I'd say my Portrait to landscape usage ratio is like 70% portrait / 30% landscape.
I view webpages, read the WSJ, NYPost, books, ipod etc.. all in portrait.
Landscape is for tv shows / movies and some games.
Why are these tablets all designed as if the user is going to hold them landscape 90% of the time? Are magazines designed to be held landscape? I don't get these horizontal tablets.
I think the majority of the people use landscape (but don't quote me on that).
Most activities (websites, emails, documents, etc) require scrolling top to bottom, not side to side, so landscape will usually give you a greater view usually.
mactoday
Apr 6, 11:16 AM
They do:D Speced out 17'' MBP.
Youre totally right though, their notebook displays have been taking backseat to the iOS train. Hell, the iPad3 is gonna have a 2048x1536 display for heavens sake...and they couldnt even give the refreshed 13'' MBP the same res as the months old 13'' MBA. FAIL.
I bet you that you'll never see a iPad with screen resolution like 2048x1536, it's a ****ing nightmare to iOS developers. You don't understand that it's ****ing crazy, iOS interface like MacOS X interface is not scalable. Apple have to change the whole GUI before making this step forward. You know why there is much smaller apps for Android OS that for iOS? Because Adnroid devices have tons of screen resolutions and every ****ing vendor think that this is better but they kill platform with tons of resolutions, it's hard for developers to make apps compatible with all resolutions, again GUI problem.
Youre totally right though, their notebook displays have been taking backseat to the iOS train. Hell, the iPad3 is gonna have a 2048x1536 display for heavens sake...and they couldnt even give the refreshed 13'' MBP the same res as the months old 13'' MBA. FAIL.
I bet you that you'll never see a iPad with screen resolution like 2048x1536, it's a ****ing nightmare to iOS developers. You don't understand that it's ****ing crazy, iOS interface like MacOS X interface is not scalable. Apple have to change the whole GUI before making this step forward. You know why there is much smaller apps for Android OS that for iOS? Because Adnroid devices have tons of screen resolutions and every ****ing vendor think that this is better but they kill platform with tons of resolutions, it's hard for developers to make apps compatible with all resolutions, again GUI problem.
Tomaz
Aug 7, 04:38 PM
I'll have to ask my firendly IT guy, but how does the end user access shadow copies?
B
As far as I know he can't, that's the difference. IT has to restore the file for you.
Still, nothing fundamentally new, and definitely not Vista 2.0... ;)
B
As far as I know he can't, that's the difference. IT has to restore the file for you.
Still, nothing fundamentally new, and definitely not Vista 2.0... ;)
gnasher729
Apr 19, 03:36 PM
Does anyone think that a normal person would actually confuse a Samsung Galaxy (especially with that huge "Samsung" on it) with an Apple iPhone when they're buying it?
I mean, is Apple going to claim that they're losing sales because the Galaxy is so close to the iPhone that people can't tell the difference? If so, that sure doesn't say much for the iPhone. Or it says a lot for the Galaxy.
You made up your mind and you argue accordingly. Consider this: Many people know the name "iPhone" and the way it looks, they may even know the name "Macintosh", but not the name "Apple". They might have talked to someone who used an iPhone and was very happy with it, were convinced to buy one, and go to a shop and pick up the phone that looks exactly like the one they wanted to buy. And end up with a Samsung phone when they actually wanted an iPhone.
Your second argument doesn't really make much sense. Samsung knew what the iPhone looks like, so if the Galaxy looks the same, it is because Samsung decided that it should look that way. Confusion surely goes both ways, so there would be a danger for Samsung that someone wanting to buy a Galaxy ends up buying an iPhone. Samsung had to know and accept this. So obviously Samsung is of the opinion that if people who want an iPhone buy a Galaxy by mistake, and people who want a Galaxy buy an iPhone by mistake, then Samsung will overall benefit. Doesn't seem to say much for the Galaxy, if they try to create this confusion.
I mean, is Apple going to claim that they're losing sales because the Galaxy is so close to the iPhone that people can't tell the difference? If so, that sure doesn't say much for the iPhone. Or it says a lot for the Galaxy.
You made up your mind and you argue accordingly. Consider this: Many people know the name "iPhone" and the way it looks, they may even know the name "Macintosh", but not the name "Apple". They might have talked to someone who used an iPhone and was very happy with it, were convinced to buy one, and go to a shop and pick up the phone that looks exactly like the one they wanted to buy. And end up with a Samsung phone when they actually wanted an iPhone.
Your second argument doesn't really make much sense. Samsung knew what the iPhone looks like, so if the Galaxy looks the same, it is because Samsung decided that it should look that way. Confusion surely goes both ways, so there would be a danger for Samsung that someone wanting to buy a Galaxy ends up buying an iPhone. Samsung had to know and accept this. So obviously Samsung is of the opinion that if people who want an iPhone buy a Galaxy by mistake, and people who want a Galaxy buy an iPhone by mistake, then Samsung will overall benefit. Doesn't seem to say much for the Galaxy, if they try to create this confusion.
Michaelgtrusa
Apr 8, 01:59 AM
It depends on the store your at, some BestBuy's have poor management, some don't.
iMikeT
Aug 26, 07:11 PM
Oh man.... I sure these new processors make their way into the PowerMac G5.
jb510
Mar 25, 10:52 PM
Whatever happened to:
Alpha -> Beta -> Release Candidate -> Golden Master
I guess I can uncross my fingers of a file system miracle...
(yes I know and am looking forward to Z410, but would rather have Apple come up with something).
Alpha -> Beta -> Release Candidate -> Golden Master
I guess I can uncross my fingers of a file system miracle...
(yes I know and am looking forward to Z410, but would rather have Apple come up with something).
fivepoint
Apr 27, 01:54 PM
First off, before the ignorant attacks begin, no I'm not a birther. I'm personally of the opinion that he was born in America and generally share the president's feelings that this is a giant waste of time.
Now... to the issue at hand: I'm not an expert in layout/graphic-design, but can someone please tell me why the PDF Certificate of Live Birth has Illustrator layers? If it's a scan, shouldn't it just be a single image, jpg, pdf, png, etc. consisting of a bunch of pixels and not layers? I downloaded the file from whitehouse.gov, opened it in Adobe Illustrator, and after releasing the layers slide the black text around seperate from the green/white background. I'm not sure what's going on here, can someone shed some light on the issue?
I'm assuming there's a logical explanation, any graphic artists here want to update the rest of us?
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5026/5662168856_0e95c82cc7_b.jpg
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5066/5661600471_9ebebdaf36_b.jpg
Now... to the issue at hand: I'm not an expert in layout/graphic-design, but can someone please tell me why the PDF Certificate of Live Birth has Illustrator layers? If it's a scan, shouldn't it just be a single image, jpg, pdf, png, etc. consisting of a bunch of pixels and not layers? I downloaded the file from whitehouse.gov, opened it in Adobe Illustrator, and after releasing the layers slide the black text around seperate from the green/white background. I'm not sure what's going on here, can someone shed some light on the issue?
I'm assuming there's a logical explanation, any graphic artists here want to update the rest of us?
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5026/5662168856_0e95c82cc7_b.jpg
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5066/5661600471_9ebebdaf36_b.jpg
Rt&Dzine
Apr 27, 03:14 PM
I'd be fascinated to know exactly what you did to "discover" those layers, 5P. I have Photoshop and Illustrator too. Guess what? One layer. Nothing selectable. At least one of us is talking complete bollocks.
He didn't discover anything, he just bought in to the reactionary right wing propaganda spreading like wildfire on the internet.
He didn't discover anything, he just bought in to the reactionary right wing propaganda spreading like wildfire on the internet.
vivithemage
Apr 27, 08:40 AM
They have some good wordsmiths :D
farmboy
Apr 27, 09:02 AM
This is a lie
Just curious, do you use Reynolds Wrap or a store brand?
Just curious, do you use Reynolds Wrap or a store brand?
Lord Blackadder
Mar 23, 02:26 PM
That is totally reasonable and understandable, although I do disagree. I can't with good heart support sending my neighbors son/daughter overseas to fight for another people.
Well, we have allies, don't we? I simply consider the UN an attempt to permanently ally the world's nations to the extent that these sort of situations can be dealt with based on broader consensus. We are far from the ideal, but we must keep working towards it and an imperfect UN is better than no UN at all.
I just find it pretty disgusting when we have the VP going on the record talking out his arse about "Unless we are attacked or unless there is proof we are about to be attacked", then a couple years later nary a peep when we start bombing a foreign country that is not even close to a threat to us. Did Biden qualify it with a " we should be able to intervene in a nation's affairs if it is thought necessary to either 1) protect other nations from harm or 2) protect a nation's own people from its government, or in the case of a civil war, one or more factions." NOPE!
I'm not going to defend Biden, he puts his foot in his mouth quite a bit - though he is FAR from the only politician in Washingotn with that problem. Besides, unlike Cheney, he is very much playing second fiddle in the administration (actually he's so far down the pecking order only fiddles when someone lends him one, if I can stretch that saying to the breaking point).
It is worth remembering that the Bush Administration sent that clown Bolton as our representative to the UN - a man who opposes that organization's very existence. Incredibly counterproductive. No, I expect hypocrisy from both Democrats and Republicans.
I think it all boils down to whether you buy into the notion that the UN is a global representative body. If you do, then sending troops to enforce UN resolutions is not just fighting for "other people" but fighting for ouselves. If member nations took the concept of the UN more seriously, UN resolutions alone might be enough to stabilize situations like this without the need for major military intervention.
Well, we have allies, don't we? I simply consider the UN an attempt to permanently ally the world's nations to the extent that these sort of situations can be dealt with based on broader consensus. We are far from the ideal, but we must keep working towards it and an imperfect UN is better than no UN at all.
I just find it pretty disgusting when we have the VP going on the record talking out his arse about "Unless we are attacked or unless there is proof we are about to be attacked", then a couple years later nary a peep when we start bombing a foreign country that is not even close to a threat to us. Did Biden qualify it with a " we should be able to intervene in a nation's affairs if it is thought necessary to either 1) protect other nations from harm or 2) protect a nation's own people from its government, or in the case of a civil war, one or more factions." NOPE!
I'm not going to defend Biden, he puts his foot in his mouth quite a bit - though he is FAR from the only politician in Washingotn with that problem. Besides, unlike Cheney, he is very much playing second fiddle in the administration (actually he's so far down the pecking order only fiddles when someone lends him one, if I can stretch that saying to the breaking point).
It is worth remembering that the Bush Administration sent that clown Bolton as our representative to the UN - a man who opposes that organization's very existence. Incredibly counterproductive. No, I expect hypocrisy from both Democrats and Republicans.
I think it all boils down to whether you buy into the notion that the UN is a global representative body. If you do, then sending troops to enforce UN resolutions is not just fighting for "other people" but fighting for ouselves. If member nations took the concept of the UN more seriously, UN resolutions alone might be enough to stabilize situations like this without the need for major military intervention.
catchbar
Aug 6, 03:23 PM
thats amazing!!!
generik
Sep 19, 01:15 AM
Haha, sounds like other people's disappointment amuses you. Feeding the fires of anticipation there... I can play along.
Any likelihood that we will see a laptop (NOT notebook) that can actually be used in one's lap without suffering from burns?!
Well it is not "other people's" disappointment, I know for a fact that if the nice HDD bay didn't make it into the next speedbump I'd be royally pissed. But yeah, somehow I have a really bad feeling that it is just going to be a chip swop.
Any likelihood that we will see a laptop (NOT notebook) that can actually be used in one's lap without suffering from burns?!
Well it is not "other people's" disappointment, I know for a fact that if the nice HDD bay didn't make it into the next speedbump I'd be royally pissed. But yeah, somehow I have a really bad feeling that it is just going to be a chip swop.
No comments:
Post a Comment