CalBoy
May 6, 04:30 PM
So you're saying that science has nothing to do with everyday life? Cake for the elite and bread for everyone else??
I didn't say that at all.
Certain things are good for one thing but not as good for another. Basing your metrics off of water and light make a lot of sense when you have to measure a great deal of new items and compare them objectively.
On the other hand when you need metrics to be a guide through daily life and nothing else, the system that's born from daily necessity makes a lot more sense.
The reasoning gets worse when you'd ask 311 million to make a change because a smaller community of professionals would like their standards to be the standards for all of society. It's not like the two can't coexist; there might be a good argument there if the two were incompatible, but the fact is that they're not.
I see no good sense in that. If the metric system was intrinsically difficult to use in everyday life, then maybe you would have a point. But it's not � it's actually much, much easier to use once you learn it.
A distinction needs to be made here: just because something is easier to multiply by 10 (or 1/10th) doesn't mean that it's easier to use. How many times in your daily life do you need to multiply by 10, or even multiply what you measure? In most of my daily activities the metric system would do nothing new except provide a new set of numbers to get to know.
Even if you did occasionally multiply daily measurements, it would probably be with a smaller integer like 2, 3, or 4. In that case, the imperial system works very well because it provides very low factors and products that most people can do rapidly with nothing more than their 2nd grade 12x12 tables. In fact that's exactly how it came to be the way it is.
The metric system, as many people here keep pointing out, enables some pretty easy mental arithmetic. You'd use it if you had it.
How often does that easy arithmetic come up outside of science? Can you think of a real life example?
In any case, I do already have it. It's on every measuring device I have, from my ruler to my bathroom scale. I use it when it's necessary or more effective, but that's rare. Maybe you should accept that people can have a different preference.
You say it's about the 'ease of transition' but in the next breath you argue that it's all about 'economic return'. Personally I think you're clutching at straws to defend the fact that your country is behind the rest of the world in its ability to institute any kind of consistency with its system of measurements. But, we can agree to disagree.
They are not mutually exclusive values. Both are important factors in determining whether or not to switch. It's just like when a business decides to change it's logo; not only does the cost of marketing the new logo have to be factored in, but the potential lost sales also have to be weighed. In much the same way we have to decide if certain things being switched to metric will ever pay off and how disruptive they'll be. Some things that make sense like food and toiletries have already been metricated. Other things probably cost a lot more and won't be able to overcome their switching cost and they could also cost a lot.
I didn't say that at all.
Certain things are good for one thing but not as good for another. Basing your metrics off of water and light make a lot of sense when you have to measure a great deal of new items and compare them objectively.
On the other hand when you need metrics to be a guide through daily life and nothing else, the system that's born from daily necessity makes a lot more sense.
The reasoning gets worse when you'd ask 311 million to make a change because a smaller community of professionals would like their standards to be the standards for all of society. It's not like the two can't coexist; there might be a good argument there if the two were incompatible, but the fact is that they're not.
I see no good sense in that. If the metric system was intrinsically difficult to use in everyday life, then maybe you would have a point. But it's not � it's actually much, much easier to use once you learn it.
A distinction needs to be made here: just because something is easier to multiply by 10 (or 1/10th) doesn't mean that it's easier to use. How many times in your daily life do you need to multiply by 10, or even multiply what you measure? In most of my daily activities the metric system would do nothing new except provide a new set of numbers to get to know.
Even if you did occasionally multiply daily measurements, it would probably be with a smaller integer like 2, 3, or 4. In that case, the imperial system works very well because it provides very low factors and products that most people can do rapidly with nothing more than their 2nd grade 12x12 tables. In fact that's exactly how it came to be the way it is.
The metric system, as many people here keep pointing out, enables some pretty easy mental arithmetic. You'd use it if you had it.
How often does that easy arithmetic come up outside of science? Can you think of a real life example?
In any case, I do already have it. It's on every measuring device I have, from my ruler to my bathroom scale. I use it when it's necessary or more effective, but that's rare. Maybe you should accept that people can have a different preference.
You say it's about the 'ease of transition' but in the next breath you argue that it's all about 'economic return'. Personally I think you're clutching at straws to defend the fact that your country is behind the rest of the world in its ability to institute any kind of consistency with its system of measurements. But, we can agree to disagree.
They are not mutually exclusive values. Both are important factors in determining whether or not to switch. It's just like when a business decides to change it's logo; not only does the cost of marketing the new logo have to be factored in, but the potential lost sales also have to be weighed. In much the same way we have to decide if certain things being switched to metric will ever pay off and how disruptive they'll be. Some things that make sense like food and toiletries have already been metricated. Other things probably cost a lot more and won't be able to overcome their switching cost and they could also cost a lot.
poppe
Aug 3, 11:02 PM
It is sad to have to wait till September... I wanted to show my family my MBP since they've never though of using a Mac until me
QuarterSwede
Apr 24, 05:45 PM
on what basis? has the iPhone and iPad gone higher in price as it progressed?
Our budget for a MacPro is almost a quarter of what it used to be 3 years ago :)
Agreed. 5 years ago I paid $2700 for a 12" PowerBook. I can get a top 17" for that now and a 13" MBP for over $1,000 less.
Our budget for a MacPro is almost a quarter of what it used to be 3 years ago :)
Agreed. 5 years ago I paid $2700 for a 12" PowerBook. I can get a top 17" for that now and a 13" MBP for over $1,000 less.
GFLPraxis
Aug 7, 03:12 PM
LAME
� $2,499 standard price of Mac Pro ($2,299 for Education)
��$2,124 is the lowest you can configure the Mac Pro ($1,962 for Education)
���To get it that low, you have to drop the processors from 2.66GHz to 2GHz and and the hard drive from 250GB to 160GB
It's still a QUAD at $2,124. Even if it's 2 GHz, that's still utterly insane, especially when a *single* 2 GHz Woodcrest outperforms a 3.5 GHz Pentium 4 easily IIRC.
and as a sidenote:
� MacBook Pro & MacBook processors untouched
� iMac untouched
� iPod product line grows more stale by the day
The lack of iMac updates was my greatest disappointment.
� $2,499 standard price of Mac Pro ($2,299 for Education)
��$2,124 is the lowest you can configure the Mac Pro ($1,962 for Education)
���To get it that low, you have to drop the processors from 2.66GHz to 2GHz and and the hard drive from 250GB to 160GB
It's still a QUAD at $2,124. Even if it's 2 GHz, that's still utterly insane, especially when a *single* 2 GHz Woodcrest outperforms a 3.5 GHz Pentium 4 easily IIRC.
and as a sidenote:
� MacBook Pro & MacBook processors untouched
� iMac untouched
� iPod product line grows more stale by the day
The lack of iMac updates was my greatest disappointment.
28monkeys
Apr 23, 06:20 PM
excellent
macfan881
May 7, 08:37 PM
Great news considering you can get 90 percent of the stuff for free online the only feature i would want is find my iPhone when i get the 4th gen iPhone but if i can get my own .me account i would ditch gmail in a second for me
entropys
Apr 20, 03:26 AM
I find it hard to believe that the next iphone won't turn up until September if Apple is only shoehorning in a current production processor and maybe a spec upgrade on the camera. So it is obviously about LTE.
If not, then this is all some sort of elaborate canary trap or disinformation campaign. Thus the iphone will still be released in July and we get to hear about some leaker that got fired.
If not, then this is all some sort of elaborate canary trap or disinformation campaign. Thus the iphone will still be released in July and we get to hear about some leaker that got fired.
LondonCentral
Apr 20, 04:39 AM
�499 for a white iPhone 5 and you can count me in, again. I've just sold my iPhone 4.
Now to carry on avoiding all the Verizon/AT&T nonsense on here. :rolleyes:
Now to carry on avoiding all the Verizon/AT&T nonsense on here. :rolleyes:
netdog
Jul 30, 03:23 AM
If Apple get it right it will be the fashion phone of choice.
What will be really great is that, in addition to the above, something that is the critical factor as it was with iPod, it will also sync beautifully with Apple contacts, calendars, etc., driving more people to purchase Apple computers, even though I do expect that they will also bundle a nice piece of Windows software (a must).
Apples are already climbing in sales and many of my Windows-using friends are considering Macs for the first time now, not because of all the stuff endlessly debated here, but rather because the iMac and MacBooks are so bitchin'.
Steve Jobs is indeed finally capitalizing on "taste", an obcession of his from the early days. He was right when he said in the 80s that "the problem with Microsoft is that they have no taste. I mean that in a big sense." Now his company is poised to take a large portion of Microsoft's sales by exploiting that vulnerability.
People aren't realizing that OS X is better. They are falling in love with the new stylish Macs, obscure objects of desire. The fact that they are getting better and better, and that they are making a line of easily interoperable products (much more of this to come in the coming 12 months - media center, phone, and maybe even a UPMC) that just make life easier is just a plus that will help to sustain the brand.
Sharp. LOL.
What will be really great is that, in addition to the above, something that is the critical factor as it was with iPod, it will also sync beautifully with Apple contacts, calendars, etc., driving more people to purchase Apple computers, even though I do expect that they will also bundle a nice piece of Windows software (a must).
Apples are already climbing in sales and many of my Windows-using friends are considering Macs for the first time now, not because of all the stuff endlessly debated here, but rather because the iMac and MacBooks are so bitchin'.
Steve Jobs is indeed finally capitalizing on "taste", an obcession of his from the early days. He was right when he said in the 80s that "the problem with Microsoft is that they have no taste. I mean that in a big sense." Now his company is poised to take a large portion of Microsoft's sales by exploiting that vulnerability.
People aren't realizing that OS X is better. They are falling in love with the new stylish Macs, obscure objects of desire. The fact that they are getting better and better, and that they are making a line of easily interoperable products (much more of this to come in the coming 12 months - media center, phone, and maybe even a UPMC) that just make life easier is just a plus that will help to sustain the brand.
Sharp. LOL.
BenRoethig
Jul 29, 10:54 PM
I'll believe the iPhone when I see it. It's been "just around the corner" for what, a year and a half now.
Eldiablojoe
May 4, 05:21 PM
I'm glad we finally started moving :).
We might as well keep moving forward through the door at the end of the hallway.
Concur
We might as well keep moving forward through the door at the end of the hallway.
Concur
KnightWRX
Apr 24, 09:37 AM
Yes, an iMac needs to have a 7xxx Display to be retina...as it's viewing distance shouldn't be what the iP4 is.
You contradict yourself here. A 27" iMac is probably already retina, considering the viewing distance should be around 30" away.
As the distance grows, the PPI treshold to achieve the "retina" effect of "Eye can't distinguish the individual pixels" becomes lower. Given enough distance, 48 PPI can be enough to be dubbed "retina display" (your standard 50" 1080p TV).
Is 25,600,000 bytes (25.6 MB) x 60 Hz not equal to 1,536,000,000 bytes.
Correct me if I am wrong.
No, you're not wrong. But I'm not either. I'll let you figure out why (think about the lower case b in Mbps vs MB of RAM ;) ). Unless I'm misinterpreting something, I doubt DP 1.2 can push out 21 gigaBYTES of data per second...
As for the 6990 listing that as max resolution, I'm betting that has more to do with current LCD display limitation (that is the max resolutions you'll find on an LCD monitor) than with actual hardware limitation. The hardware is capable of more than that. Some of these cards with a single GPU have 2-4 DP outputs capable of driving 2-4 of these 2560x1600 monitors. The GPU itself doesn't a problem pushing out these pixels and DP 1.2 makes it so they can push it over a single connection.
I look forward to the day that Apple releases retina displays for the MBP. Something else that would set :apple: apart.
Sony was there first with the Vaio Z. 13.3", 1920x1080 baby. If it weren't so expensive it would be mine and I'd be back to running Linux.
You contradict yourself here. A 27" iMac is probably already retina, considering the viewing distance should be around 30" away.
As the distance grows, the PPI treshold to achieve the "retina" effect of "Eye can't distinguish the individual pixels" becomes lower. Given enough distance, 48 PPI can be enough to be dubbed "retina display" (your standard 50" 1080p TV).
Is 25,600,000 bytes (25.6 MB) x 60 Hz not equal to 1,536,000,000 bytes.
Correct me if I am wrong.
No, you're not wrong. But I'm not either. I'll let you figure out why (think about the lower case b in Mbps vs MB of RAM ;) ). Unless I'm misinterpreting something, I doubt DP 1.2 can push out 21 gigaBYTES of data per second...
As for the 6990 listing that as max resolution, I'm betting that has more to do with current LCD display limitation (that is the max resolutions you'll find on an LCD monitor) than with actual hardware limitation. The hardware is capable of more than that. Some of these cards with a single GPU have 2-4 DP outputs capable of driving 2-4 of these 2560x1600 monitors. The GPU itself doesn't a problem pushing out these pixels and DP 1.2 makes it so they can push it over a single connection.
I look forward to the day that Apple releases retina displays for the MBP. Something else that would set :apple: apart.
Sony was there first with the Vaio Z. 13.3", 1920x1080 baby. If it weren't so expensive it would be mine and I'd be back to running Linux.
motulist
Apr 20, 01:26 AM
iPhone 4 with 3.5" screen: 115.2mm x 58.6mm x 9.3mm
weight: 137 grams
HTC Thunderbolt with 4" screen: 122mm x 66mm x 13mm
weight: 164 grams
I am not sure about you, but on composite that HTC with a 4" screen is noticeably larger in every possible way over the iPhone 4.
Um, just because HTC came out with a device that has those dimensions doesn't mean that those are the smallest dimensions possible for that screen size. Apparently you wren't looking at macrumors a couple of months ago when the rumors were being posted about the next iphone having an edge-to edge screen.
EDIT:
http://www.macrumors.com/2011/02/16/iphone-5-rumors-spawn-mockups/
http://www.macrumors.com/2011/02/26/iphone-5-part-shows-larger-screen-thinner-bezel/
http://www.macrumors.com/2011/03/10/iphone-5-design-images-with-larger-screen/
weight: 137 grams
HTC Thunderbolt with 4" screen: 122mm x 66mm x 13mm
weight: 164 grams
I am not sure about you, but on composite that HTC with a 4" screen is noticeably larger in every possible way over the iPhone 4.
Um, just because HTC came out with a device that has those dimensions doesn't mean that those are the smallest dimensions possible for that screen size. Apparently you wren't looking at macrumors a couple of months ago when the rumors were being posted about the next iphone having an edge-to edge screen.
EDIT:
http://www.macrumors.com/2011/02/16/iphone-5-rumors-spawn-mockups/
http://www.macrumors.com/2011/02/26/iphone-5-part-shows-larger-screen-thinner-bezel/
http://www.macrumors.com/2011/03/10/iphone-5-design-images-with-larger-screen/
Popeye206
Apr 20, 04:51 AM
This will definitely be the first iteration of the iPhone that I will pass on. It's certainly not much of an upgrade from the iPhone 4.
LOL! Sorry... not just laughing at you, but these are all pretty vague rumors so far so we have no idea what's really going to be there.
Besides things like faster processors, upgraded cameras, more RAM, 4G, and/or RFID what the heck else can you pack into a phone that isn't addressed at the software level?
However... with that said, I did also hear from the neighbor of a friend that has a friend that works for a supplier that makes the buttons on the iPhone that the new iPhone will definitely have buttons. :p
LOL! Sorry... not just laughing at you, but these are all pretty vague rumors so far so we have no idea what's really going to be there.
Besides things like faster processors, upgraded cameras, more RAM, 4G, and/or RFID what the heck else can you pack into a phone that isn't addressed at the software level?
However... with that said, I did also hear from the neighbor of a friend that has a friend that works for a supplier that makes the buttons on the iPhone that the new iPhone will definitely have buttons. :p
zoran
Aug 2, 03:39 PM
How can we get a hold of that keynote that Macrummors said will cover?
zin
May 4, 03:30 PM
If Lion is released through the Mac App Store then us here in the UK will get it cheaper, since App Store prices are always less expensive than in the US (in the UK). For once, we may get a new Apple product that costs less.
I would still far prefer a physical backup like the USB key rather than having a virtual copy or a physical copy I have to create from the download.
I would still far prefer a physical backup like the USB key rather than having a virtual copy or a physical copy I have to create from the download.
SandynJosh
Apr 23, 09:41 PM
I will be honest and truthful and say for a mobile device on batteries, I'm very impressed as what the iPhone and iPad can do gaming wise.
However I will also state, and I think we all should be honest, that at the moment, Apple are bringing the games DOWN to what their hardware can do, as opposed to making Hardware so great that gaming is being pushed UP to take advantage of Apples industry leading performance.
In your first paragraph you talk about Apple's mobile products, which is where Apple will be putting most of their effort in the foreseeable future. To have successful portable products, having a long time between charges is highly important. The old brute force methods of throwing power and RAM at the gaming performance problem can not be part of the design mindset. Game designers know this and are becoming much better at coding for portable games, but they are not quite there yet. Meanwhile Apple is working to find ways to build in performance and not increase power draw.
THIS is the future as Apple sees it, and their acceptance in the broad general market shows that they are on the right track.
When Apple release GTX580 beating desktops, and/or Xbox360 / PS3 beating gaming devices, I will happily bow down to them being the greatest in graphics.
NOW you have switched to talking about desktop and console gaming computers. THIS is a whole different area. First off, it's a tiny segment of the whole computer market. It's big, but not nearly as huge as what Apple is aiming for with their products.
In a nutshell, Apple's strategy is to capture the mobile device market as completely as they can. They are being highly successful at that strategy from iPods to iPhones, to iPads, to Laptops.
Meanwhile they are growing rapidly in the iMac desktop and tower market due primarily to the halo effect of their success in the portable arena. They are doing this even while the desktop and tower markets are shrinking overall. Can you see why Apple will not be putting a lot of effort into this segment?
But right now, they are trailing by miles due to years of neglect as they just did not have products that could compete, and their one semi attempt at a console got nowhere.
Note: I would LOVE LOVE LOVE Apple to turn this around.
You are right. Apple did not have products that could compete in the desktop and console markets. This was primarily due to game developers not interested in writing games for Intel chips and PowerPC chips. Since the installed base for Intel-based computers was more then a order-of-magnitude larger than the installed base of Macs. Apple was never going to enjoy being a suitable gaming platform until they switched to Intel CPUs.
Once Apple made the switch, they have come a long way towards being an acceptable gaming computer, but they have no desire or plans to go after the high end of this market... it's just not that profitable or large. Remember AlienWare? They had the best gaming computer, IMO, and they had to sell themselves to another company to stay alive.
As for the console market, it's crowded with established competitors and will likely see one squeezed out. Not the kind of market that Apple or anyone else should want to jump into.
They need to ditch the "Laptops on a Stand" design of the iMac for starters, but I feel they never will as they have decided they won't compete and they cannot compete in this sector of the market.
I addressed this above. As for the "Laptops on a Stand" design, it's such a bad design that the largest computer company, HP, as well as others, have copied it.
Console wise, I'm not sure they could compete against a 360 or a PS3. Let's say Apple against a PS4 or a Xbox720
Nope, can't see that happening either.
I address this above. Apple doesn't want to be in this arena. It's small and the competition is deadly.
The low power/trimmed down, casual gamers games, seems to be the only area they are going for.
Once more you are correct. There are many many times more gamers that want a short diversion while they have a few minutes away from home, then those who want to spend thousands on an immersive game experience that requires a larger block of time. "Portability with games optional" trumps "wired to the wall and game-focused" all the way to the bank.
But Again, I would LOVE Apple to turn this around and take high end graphics seriously in their future products.
The high-end gamer is not on Apple's radar at the moment and likely never will be unless a way is found to address hi-end graphics on a portable device without impacting battery life.
I know you'd like Apple to chase this rainbow, but they won't, there's no pot of gold at the end.
However I will also state, and I think we all should be honest, that at the moment, Apple are bringing the games DOWN to what their hardware can do, as opposed to making Hardware so great that gaming is being pushed UP to take advantage of Apples industry leading performance.
In your first paragraph you talk about Apple's mobile products, which is where Apple will be putting most of their effort in the foreseeable future. To have successful portable products, having a long time between charges is highly important. The old brute force methods of throwing power and RAM at the gaming performance problem can not be part of the design mindset. Game designers know this and are becoming much better at coding for portable games, but they are not quite there yet. Meanwhile Apple is working to find ways to build in performance and not increase power draw.
THIS is the future as Apple sees it, and their acceptance in the broad general market shows that they are on the right track.
When Apple release GTX580 beating desktops, and/or Xbox360 / PS3 beating gaming devices, I will happily bow down to them being the greatest in graphics.
NOW you have switched to talking about desktop and console gaming computers. THIS is a whole different area. First off, it's a tiny segment of the whole computer market. It's big, but not nearly as huge as what Apple is aiming for with their products.
In a nutshell, Apple's strategy is to capture the mobile device market as completely as they can. They are being highly successful at that strategy from iPods to iPhones, to iPads, to Laptops.
Meanwhile they are growing rapidly in the iMac desktop and tower market due primarily to the halo effect of their success in the portable arena. They are doing this even while the desktop and tower markets are shrinking overall. Can you see why Apple will not be putting a lot of effort into this segment?
But right now, they are trailing by miles due to years of neglect as they just did not have products that could compete, and their one semi attempt at a console got nowhere.
Note: I would LOVE LOVE LOVE Apple to turn this around.
You are right. Apple did not have products that could compete in the desktop and console markets. This was primarily due to game developers not interested in writing games for Intel chips and PowerPC chips. Since the installed base for Intel-based computers was more then a order-of-magnitude larger than the installed base of Macs. Apple was never going to enjoy being a suitable gaming platform until they switched to Intel CPUs.
Once Apple made the switch, they have come a long way towards being an acceptable gaming computer, but they have no desire or plans to go after the high end of this market... it's just not that profitable or large. Remember AlienWare? They had the best gaming computer, IMO, and they had to sell themselves to another company to stay alive.
As for the console market, it's crowded with established competitors and will likely see one squeezed out. Not the kind of market that Apple or anyone else should want to jump into.
They need to ditch the "Laptops on a Stand" design of the iMac for starters, but I feel they never will as they have decided they won't compete and they cannot compete in this sector of the market.
I addressed this above. As for the "Laptops on a Stand" design, it's such a bad design that the largest computer company, HP, as well as others, have copied it.
Console wise, I'm not sure they could compete against a 360 or a PS3. Let's say Apple against a PS4 or a Xbox720
Nope, can't see that happening either.
I address this above. Apple doesn't want to be in this arena. It's small and the competition is deadly.
The low power/trimmed down, casual gamers games, seems to be the only area they are going for.
Once more you are correct. There are many many times more gamers that want a short diversion while they have a few minutes away from home, then those who want to spend thousands on an immersive game experience that requires a larger block of time. "Portability with games optional" trumps "wired to the wall and game-focused" all the way to the bank.
But Again, I would LOVE Apple to turn this around and take high end graphics seriously in their future products.
The high-end gamer is not on Apple's radar at the moment and likely never will be unless a way is found to address hi-end graphics on a portable device without impacting battery life.
I know you'd like Apple to chase this rainbow, but they won't, there's no pot of gold at the end.
A is jump
Nov 26, 10:44 PM
This will make the perfect addition to my Space age Bachlor pad! dim lights, play slow music... ha ha.
what a laugh! I do like the idea. But I cant see myself buying one, unless I have a bunch of money to waste on something that wouldnt be especially productive for me.
what a laugh! I do like the idea. But I cant see myself buying one, unless I have a bunch of money to waste on something that wouldnt be especially productive for me.
Reach9
Apr 20, 01:00 PM
I honestly don't understand where some people get their logic from.
I just skimmed through this thread and i saw posts like "The next iPhone will be an iPhne 4S/iPad 2 type upgrade, so it won't be big". Or "the next iPhone should be called iPhone 4GS or iPhone 4S, because it won't be a big upgrade".
I'm sorry but a Dual Core processor itself makes it a huge upgrade. The iPhone 3GS was the biggest upgrade internally, the iPhone 4 has more RAM.
Don't judge a book by it's cover.
Btw, why would Apple go back to messing up with their names? iPhone 3G was almost the exact same as the Original iPhone, except it had 3G functionalities. So they had to emphasize on "3G", hence the name.
In a marketing stance, it didn't make sense for Apple to go from iPhone 3G to iPhone 3, people want to see improvements not a removal of a letter.
And now finally they came back to the numerical way of naming the iPhone, and i think it'll stay just like that. It makes no sense for Apple to mess it up.
Otherwise the iPad 2 according to some people here should've been called "iPad 1S" :rolleyes:
This should make sense:
iPhone = iPhone 1
iPhone 3G = iPhone 2
iPhone 3GS = iPhone 3
iPhone 4 = iPhone 4
iPhone 5 = iPhone 5
Makes sense? Now how messed up would this be..
iPhone 4 = iPhone 4
iPhone 4S = iPhone 5
iPhone 5 = iPhone 6
In other words, don't undermine the iPhone 5. Due to the leak of the 'prototype' iPhone 4 last year, Apple has been very strict with their next device, by this time last year we knew a lot about the iPhone 4.
So we can only wait until a date closer to September (from what it seems), to see the actual features of the phone.
Keep in mind guys, Apple is going to add things to make current iPhone 4 owners upgrade, it's all marketing.
I just skimmed through this thread and i saw posts like "The next iPhone will be an iPhne 4S/iPad 2 type upgrade, so it won't be big". Or "the next iPhone should be called iPhone 4GS or iPhone 4S, because it won't be a big upgrade".
I'm sorry but a Dual Core processor itself makes it a huge upgrade. The iPhone 3GS was the biggest upgrade internally, the iPhone 4 has more RAM.
Don't judge a book by it's cover.
Btw, why would Apple go back to messing up with their names? iPhone 3G was almost the exact same as the Original iPhone, except it had 3G functionalities. So they had to emphasize on "3G", hence the name.
In a marketing stance, it didn't make sense for Apple to go from iPhone 3G to iPhone 3, people want to see improvements not a removal of a letter.
And now finally they came back to the numerical way of naming the iPhone, and i think it'll stay just like that. It makes no sense for Apple to mess it up.
Otherwise the iPad 2 according to some people here should've been called "iPad 1S" :rolleyes:
This should make sense:
iPhone = iPhone 1
iPhone 3G = iPhone 2
iPhone 3GS = iPhone 3
iPhone 4 = iPhone 4
iPhone 5 = iPhone 5
Makes sense? Now how messed up would this be..
iPhone 4 = iPhone 4
iPhone 4S = iPhone 5
iPhone 5 = iPhone 6
In other words, don't undermine the iPhone 5. Due to the leak of the 'prototype' iPhone 4 last year, Apple has been very strict with their next device, by this time last year we knew a lot about the iPhone 4.
So we can only wait until a date closer to September (from what it seems), to see the actual features of the phone.
Keep in mind guys, Apple is going to add things to make current iPhone 4 owners upgrade, it's all marketing.
DeathChill
Apr 8, 08:14 PM
I disagree. The OS on the most number of devices always ends up "winning" (for a lack of a better word.) It has happened time and time again. Windows beat MacOS after a few years due to it being on a wider range of hardware. The same happened with Android on phones. It will most defiantly happen again; if not with Android, defiantly with an OS which works on the same business model and is not tied to specific hardware.
The 'average user' customer likes choice. The iPad provides none. An iPad is an iPad and that is that. Whereas Android provides a wide range of models and sizes and colours and specs.
You're ignoring a huge factor: price. Mac products were more expensive than their PC counterparts. That's not at all true for the iPad. As well, Apple has huge brand cachet and their products are gorgeous to look at and touch.
I'm not sure that choice is going to be a huge advantage in the tablet market as there's not much differentiation that is going to matter to the normal consumer. Sure, there can be different sizes but most people are happy with the iPad's size (no, not tech nerds who demand to have a tablet they can carry everywhere ;)).
The 'average user' customer likes choice. The iPad provides none. An iPad is an iPad and that is that. Whereas Android provides a wide range of models and sizes and colours and specs.
You're ignoring a huge factor: price. Mac products were more expensive than their PC counterparts. That's not at all true for the iPad. As well, Apple has huge brand cachet and their products are gorgeous to look at and touch.
I'm not sure that choice is going to be a huge advantage in the tablet market as there's not much differentiation that is going to matter to the normal consumer. Sure, there can be different sizes but most people are happy with the iPad's size (no, not tech nerds who demand to have a tablet they can carry everywhere ;)).
wjlafrance
May 6, 12:13 AM
I was about to say, "What?! And lose the Windows compatibility they bragged on so much with the Intel transition? You're kidding me!", then I remembered that Windows 8 is also rumored (confirmed?) to run on ARM.
This might actually happen..
This might actually happen..
QuantumLo0p
Nov 17, 02:53 PM
And why are we so worried about passing on Windows Viruses, doesn't everyone running Windows HAVE TO run AV software. They would be nuts if they didn't. Viruses and malware have been and will always be problems that windows users will face. Just like you said.
I suppose it still remains a personal choice, albeit quite a gray area. IMO, knowingly passing on a virus to another computer, and damage results, could very well be interpreted as malice and then be subject to criminal charges. I am not an expert on it but even if criminal law does not apply, possible civil action certainly does apply. Suing someone over damages could become more common in the future.
I know I would sue the jackass.
:D
I suppose it still remains a personal choice, albeit quite a gray area. IMO, knowingly passing on a virus to another computer, and damage results, could very well be interpreted as malice and then be subject to criminal charges. I am not an expert on it but even if criminal law does not apply, possible civil action certainly does apply. Suing someone over damages could become more common in the future.
I know I would sue the jackass.
:D
Whozown
Apr 5, 04:55 PM
2010 - Apple Loses #1 Mobile OS spot to Android OS
2011 - Apple pisses off their JB customers and loses 10% more
2012 - Apple loses #2 and #3 spot to Windows Mobile & HP OS
Within 12 months Apple will own the same market share as their computers, 9% ... and it'll have been the same story: rose to glory, abuse the customer and business partners, people get sick of the rulebook and leave for more open pastures.
This is all deja vu from the 80s repeating itself, wow.
I dumped iPhone at xmas, now I'll likely dump iPad 2 if this trend continues. If they really push the washington involvement to stop jailbreaking, I'll get rid of my 3 iMac\MB Air\MB Pro... I don't support companies who attack me. They're here because of me, not the opposite. If they don't get that, adios.
HAHAHAH! Please, be my quest. There aren't enough people with similar thinking to even register on Apple's "oh no" list. They'll continue to grow and put out product after product that will dominate the market. The difference between the 80's and now is the "cool" appeal. People HAVE to have that new Apple product.
2011 - Apple pisses off their JB customers and loses 10% more
2012 - Apple loses #2 and #3 spot to Windows Mobile & HP OS
Within 12 months Apple will own the same market share as their computers, 9% ... and it'll have been the same story: rose to glory, abuse the customer and business partners, people get sick of the rulebook and leave for more open pastures.
This is all deja vu from the 80s repeating itself, wow.
I dumped iPhone at xmas, now I'll likely dump iPad 2 if this trend continues. If they really push the washington involvement to stop jailbreaking, I'll get rid of my 3 iMac\MB Air\MB Pro... I don't support companies who attack me. They're here because of me, not the opposite. If they don't get that, adios.
HAHAHAH! Please, be my quest. There aren't enough people with similar thinking to even register on Apple's "oh no" list. They'll continue to grow and put out product after product that will dominate the market. The difference between the 80's and now is the "cool" appeal. People HAVE to have that new Apple product.
SeattleMoose
Mar 27, 10:26 AM
is already old. We already have "clouds". Apple is the "cloud" for our apps. MobileMe is the "cloud" for whatever you want to put on that "cloud" server. The AppStore is "in the cloud". There are many other examples.....
The term is getting a bit long in the tooth....
The term is getting a bit long in the tooth....
No comments:
Post a Comment