sweetpoh
Mar 17, 05:25 PM
MacRumours also known as the moral police! lmao Cracks me up especially after all the post I have read in the past about people receiving extra computers in the mail by accident from apple!!! And if I was a troll and made this whole thing up completely, I have succeeded for sure, for laughing at all of the post in this stupid thread it has ruffled some nerves of the people at home wishing they had an Ipad, insted of posting from their Acer Netbook. This place is a joke
You think Best Buy has screwed you in the past? What about UCF? They let you graduate with such fine writing skills. LOL.
You think Best Buy has screwed you in the past? What about UCF? They let you graduate with such fine writing skills. LOL.
Belly-laughs
Oct 3, 01:35 PM
I�m guessing we�ll see iTV coupled with iPod Hi-Fi wireless + iPod Hi-Fi mini satellites.
AppleScruff1
Apr 11, 12:04 AM
No, they licensed out their OS to everyone and anyone who could slam together a box and then set about strong-arming box-makers to use Windows and only Windows.
Plus, PCs were and are cheap.
The success of Windows has NOTHING to do with it's quality as an OS, and has everything to do with their comfortable universal licensing racket.
So how did they copy Apple? Having 90% of the market without a quality product one can only imagine what they could have done with a good product.
Plus, PCs were and are cheap.
The success of Windows has NOTHING to do with it's quality as an OS, and has everything to do with their comfortable universal licensing racket.
So how did they copy Apple? Having 90% of the market without a quality product one can only imagine what they could have done with a good product.
t0mat0
Jan 12, 04:03 PM
Gizmodo snip What do you make of their actions?
http://gizmodo.com/343348/confessions-the-meanest-thing-gizmodo-did-at-ces
/. gizmodo ftw & ***** and giggles
http://gizmodo.com/343348/confessions-the-meanest-thing-gizmodo-did-at-ces
/. gizmodo ftw & ***** and giggles
more...
kdarling
Oct 22, 04:26 PM
So you looked around and deemed them fixed or drove around and tested them?
Tested.
In my neighborhood, which is surrounded by hills and lots of state parks, there were several well known holes for all carriers.
Certain valleys, certain sections of road. Every local person knew exactly where they were, because cell service just disappeared in those places. That map was bang on.
Then a couple of years ago, several new towers finally got approved and built, and the dead spots disappeared. (Alas, the skyline isn't as pretty as it used to be, however.)
I can still see those old dead spots marked on that map. The website says it's been up since 2001. Looks like people often enter data, but don't take the time to go back and remove it, assuming there's a way to do that.
Tested.
In my neighborhood, which is surrounded by hills and lots of state parks, there were several well known holes for all carriers.
Certain valleys, certain sections of road. Every local person knew exactly where they were, because cell service just disappeared in those places. That map was bang on.
Then a couple of years ago, several new towers finally got approved and built, and the dead spots disappeared. (Alas, the skyline isn't as pretty as it used to be, however.)
I can still see those old dead spots marked on that map. The website says it's been up since 2001. Looks like people often enter data, but don't take the time to go back and remove it, assuming there's a way to do that.
arunrajmohan
Sep 12, 07:44 AM
It's called hype, my friend.
Mr. Davidleblond,
Hype dont make the world's largest online music store, buddy.:rolleyes:
Mr. Davidleblond,
Hype dont make the world's largest online music store, buddy.:rolleyes:
more...
SockRolid
Apr 29, 06:57 PM
I booted into snow leopard on another partition after using Lion for a while and I had trouble not scrolling inversely. I've gotten quite used to it.
Agree that Lion scrolling makes more sense now that iOS is so popular. But the odd "slider" tab controller really didn't make sense to me. It was animation for animation's sake.
Agree that Lion scrolling makes more sense now that iOS is so popular. But the odd "slider" tab controller really didn't make sense to me. It was animation for animation's sake.
Some_Big_Spoon
Sep 26, 02:04 PM
Code optimization & tweaking is always good.. very good, but you'll eventually run up against the limitations of the processor. I've been having that issue for the past two weeks here at work. Disk usage hasn't been the problem, it's just me needing more horsepower than the dual G5 can muster.
a C2D MBP would give you what? Maybe a 20% speed bump. I doubt you'd notice except if you used a stop watch. For photographers and Videographers I doubt C2D would bing even a 20% boost as their main bottleneck is the speed of the disk.
Try this experiment: Bring up Activity Monitor and see if the CPU is as 100% if it is not a faster CPU will do nothing for you. On a Mac the CPU is at 100% mostly when transcoding or redering, those tasks will go faster after the speed bump
My gues is that the code re-work inside Aperture will speed things up MUCH more than a C2D could.
a C2D MBP would give you what? Maybe a 20% speed bump. I doubt you'd notice except if you used a stop watch. For photographers and Videographers I doubt C2D would bing even a 20% boost as their main bottleneck is the speed of the disk.
Try this experiment: Bring up Activity Monitor and see if the CPU is as 100% if it is not a faster CPU will do nothing for you. On a Mac the CPU is at 100% mostly when transcoding or redering, those tasks will go faster after the speed bump
My gues is that the code re-work inside Aperture will speed things up MUCH more than a C2D could.
more...
extraextra
Nov 23, 04:16 PM
$11, oh wow! :eek:
Every penny counts though, right? ;)
Every penny counts though, right? ;)
PinkyMacGodess
Oct 6, 09:23 PM
Well if Verizon hadn't been so crazy to try to corn hole Apple over the features of the iPhone and cause Apple to walk from the discussions, it would be a nearly bankrupt AT&T with their nose pressed against the glass saying that the iPhone sucks...
Sure, I have issues with AT&T's service. Sure there are times when I use AT&T's name in vain. I swore more when I found out that my Verizon phone with bluetooth would have more features on someone elses cell phone network and that the 'brain drain' at Verizon ordered certain features removed from the phone on their network! Yeah, Verizon has ZERO room to talk. They coulda had the iPhone... Hah!
Sure, I have issues with AT&T's service. Sure there are times when I use AT&T's name in vain. I swore more when I found out that my Verizon phone with bluetooth would have more features on someone elses cell phone network and that the 'brain drain' at Verizon ordered certain features removed from the phone on their network! Yeah, Verizon has ZERO room to talk. They coulda had the iPhone... Hah!
more...
GQB
May 2, 05:30 PM
No thanks.
And your option is...?
Personally, I'd like to know if the deletion that results from turning off Location Services results in slower response time when you turn it back on. Does turning it back on give you a sufficient download from the mothership to get you up and running again quickly?
I turn off Location Services frequently for a variety of reasons... battery life, roaming internationally, etc. I'd hate to have this non-issue result in slower GPS every time I toggle Location.
And your option is...?
Personally, I'd like to know if the deletion that results from turning off Location Services results in slower response time when you turn it back on. Does turning it back on give you a sufficient download from the mothership to get you up and running again quickly?
I turn off Location Services frequently for a variety of reasons... battery life, roaming internationally, etc. I'd hate to have this non-issue result in slower GPS every time I toggle Location.
steadysignal
Apr 27, 09:39 AM
3.7" ain't going to cut it, sorry
how is that battery life going to be on that larger screen you want?
how is that battery life going to be on that larger screen you want?
more...
samiwas
Mar 4, 03:57 PM
Minimum wages = unemployment, lower growth
child labor laws = limits free will and opportunities for youngsters
max hours per week = limits free will, opportunity for higher personal revenue
workplace safety = bureaucracy, red tape, lower growth
Holy effin' Shizzle batman! You don't believe this. Come on. Fo' reals? I mean really...come on. I know it, and you know it...you're trolling. There is no way you actually believe that stuff.
Minimum wages = employer must pay at the very least a human wage...not a slave wage. If the employer cannot afford to pay people fairly, their business should fail. Isn't that what the free market is all about? You produce or you fail?
Child Labor Laws = really??? Limits free will?? Opportunities for youngsters? Do you really think that if child labor laws were done away with in this country that some warehouse wouldn't have the 6-year-old kid of some nearly-homeless family out running a meat slicer for $4 a day? Do you REALLY think that kind of thing wouldn't happen? And that something like that is an opportunity for that 6-year-old? You are truly a piece of work. Oh right, I keep forgetting...you're a troll.
Max hours per week does not limit free will. An employer is certainly allowed to let an employee work 100 hours a week if they so want to. I know because I've done it on many occasions. I had a 140-hour week a while back. It's perfectly legal. But you have to PAY OVERTIME. If you want to exploit your workers, you pay them for it. You have the free will to work them overtime, they have the free will to accept that overtime, and then you pay them for it. Don't like it, don't do it...free will, baby.
Workplace safety should not be required? Bwaahahaha. Now, I most certainly do not follow most safety rules in my line of work, because a lot of them are pretty silly. But to do away with required safety procedures for many occupations is just an amazing concept. That you actually believe that employers will willingly pay more if they are not required to in order to keep their employees safe is one of the more laughable things ever.
Don't be naive. The goals are the same, more wealth, health, prosperity, and safety for all. Conservatives simply disagree with your methods. They realize that a hand-out is NEVER the same as a hand-up, and that wealth earned is not generally earned at the expense of others, but rather to their benefit.
So being paid overtime for working crazy hours is a HAND OUT? Really?
Cutting wages and pay requirements and removing safety requirements means more wealth and safety for ALL? OK. Hold on, let me comprehend that. Wait, I can't because it's the stupidest thing ever uttered.
Yes. it has been decided. He's a <censored>swell guy</censored>. There is no one who actually thinks like this.
*edit - while I meant what I said, it's not worth getting banned over.
child labor laws = limits free will and opportunities for youngsters
max hours per week = limits free will, opportunity for higher personal revenue
workplace safety = bureaucracy, red tape, lower growth
Holy effin' Shizzle batman! You don't believe this. Come on. Fo' reals? I mean really...come on. I know it, and you know it...you're trolling. There is no way you actually believe that stuff.
Minimum wages = employer must pay at the very least a human wage...not a slave wage. If the employer cannot afford to pay people fairly, their business should fail. Isn't that what the free market is all about? You produce or you fail?
Child Labor Laws = really??? Limits free will?? Opportunities for youngsters? Do you really think that if child labor laws were done away with in this country that some warehouse wouldn't have the 6-year-old kid of some nearly-homeless family out running a meat slicer for $4 a day? Do you REALLY think that kind of thing wouldn't happen? And that something like that is an opportunity for that 6-year-old? You are truly a piece of work. Oh right, I keep forgetting...you're a troll.
Max hours per week does not limit free will. An employer is certainly allowed to let an employee work 100 hours a week if they so want to. I know because I've done it on many occasions. I had a 140-hour week a while back. It's perfectly legal. But you have to PAY OVERTIME. If you want to exploit your workers, you pay them for it. You have the free will to work them overtime, they have the free will to accept that overtime, and then you pay them for it. Don't like it, don't do it...free will, baby.
Workplace safety should not be required? Bwaahahaha. Now, I most certainly do not follow most safety rules in my line of work, because a lot of them are pretty silly. But to do away with required safety procedures for many occupations is just an amazing concept. That you actually believe that employers will willingly pay more if they are not required to in order to keep their employees safe is one of the more laughable things ever.
Don't be naive. The goals are the same, more wealth, health, prosperity, and safety for all. Conservatives simply disagree with your methods. They realize that a hand-out is NEVER the same as a hand-up, and that wealth earned is not generally earned at the expense of others, but rather to their benefit.
So being paid overtime for working crazy hours is a HAND OUT? Really?
Cutting wages and pay requirements and removing safety requirements means more wealth and safety for ALL? OK. Hold on, let me comprehend that. Wait, I can't because it's the stupidest thing ever uttered.
Yes. it has been decided. He's a <censored>swell guy</censored>. There is no one who actually thinks like this.
*edit - while I meant what I said, it's not worth getting banned over.
Superken7
May 3, 03:28 PM
At that point, why not use a jailbroken iPhone?
Android kind of loses it charm.
Because no root/jailbreak is needed in order to do tethering, even if carriers disable those downloads from the Market. Because you can still download and install apps from anywhere on the internet.
But anyways, I don't think anyone would choose an OS just for one reason alone. Some might, of course.
Lots of people have been choosing the iphone over Android for years when iOS lacked tethering, for example
Its funny how the news sites word the news.. the android market has never been open. In any way. Its been less restrictive than the app store, but thats not being open, at all. I totally disagree with the people who claim android is less open every time something like this changes.
Android is "open" because google releases the latest source from time to time. (Real open source projects work in the open BTW, instead of releasing the source every big release).
That means anybody (read: carriers) can go and take a high class mobile OS for free and do with it what it wants; for better (lots of choices in software and hardware, big ecosystem) and for worse (slow updates, android modifications that suck, mobile phones that suck).
The fact that people could take android and make it even more restrictive than iOS is why it is open.
So yeah. Today android users can sideload any app without rooting/jailbreaking. Tomorrow, all carriers might start shipping phones with that feature disabled.
Thankfully, that has not happened for 99.99% of phones. But it might, because you know, as Android is open, people can modify it for both innovative improvements and new features and for locking it down.
Double edged sword :) It's not better and it's not worse, and its better and its worse. it depends on what you like/want. There is choice (and therefore competiton) between excellent mobile OSs, and that's great!
Android kind of loses it charm.
Because no root/jailbreak is needed in order to do tethering, even if carriers disable those downloads from the Market. Because you can still download and install apps from anywhere on the internet.
But anyways, I don't think anyone would choose an OS just for one reason alone. Some might, of course.
Lots of people have been choosing the iphone over Android for years when iOS lacked tethering, for example
Its funny how the news sites word the news.. the android market has never been open. In any way. Its been less restrictive than the app store, but thats not being open, at all. I totally disagree with the people who claim android is less open every time something like this changes.
Android is "open" because google releases the latest source from time to time. (Real open source projects work in the open BTW, instead of releasing the source every big release).
That means anybody (read: carriers) can go and take a high class mobile OS for free and do with it what it wants; for better (lots of choices in software and hardware, big ecosystem) and for worse (slow updates, android modifications that suck, mobile phones that suck).
The fact that people could take android and make it even more restrictive than iOS is why it is open.
So yeah. Today android users can sideload any app without rooting/jailbreaking. Tomorrow, all carriers might start shipping phones with that feature disabled.
Thankfully, that has not happened for 99.99% of phones. But it might, because you know, as Android is open, people can modify it for both innovative improvements and new features and for locking it down.
Double edged sword :) It's not better and it's not worse, and its better and its worse. it depends on what you like/want. There is choice (and therefore competiton) between excellent mobile OSs, and that's great!
more...
Edge100
Oct 20, 02:22 PM
Oh, I dunno, perhaps acquire some more companies? You know, like TiVo - with its valuable IP - for an easy $400 million. Or pump it into R&D. Or a stake in Nintendo or Sony. Or acquire the EMI Music Group (for $1 billion) as a buffer against the other RIAA members pressuring for an increase in the iTunes Store pricing. Or finally pay off Apple Records once and for all. Those are several things Apple could do* with that $10 billion that could be more useful than artificially boosting the stock by paying out an expensive dividend to grumpy shareholders.
Heck, maybe they could go all-solar on the Apple campus like what Google is doing.
*My personal favorite idea would be for Apple to acquire Atari dirt-cheap. This would give Apple a large library of classic titles that could be ported to the iPod, not to mention giving Apple a brand that could be used to pump out OS X "compatible" computers geared towards gamers in order to boost gaming on OS X overall and a means at gunning after Dell-owned Alienware and Dell's own XPS line.
I whole-heartedly agree with this.
Apple should be buying up companies, but only those that can give it some actual edge in competitive markets.
I'll give you three examples:
1) Adobe, for obvious reasons. This probably wont happen, but just imagine if it did!
2) EMI Music Group. This would be HUGE, but I'm not sure Apple has the cash. It might not even be legal, given the Apple (Computer) vs. Apple (Corps...the Beatles) stuff. What's even more odd is that EMI OWNS the master recordings of the Beatles.
3) Digidesign. This is the most likely, and probably the best bet for Apple. In case people don't know, Digidesign makes ProTools software and hardware. ProTools is the Photoshop of the audio production world; EVERYONE uses it. Apple already owns Emagic, which made Logic. The purchase of Digidesign would be a massive coup for Apple, and make it the undisputed champ of the pro audio world. And if you think this is a relatively small market, you're wrong. Nearly every movie is recorded/mixed in ProTools (with some people using either Nuendo or Digital Performer). I would LOVE to see Apple buy Digidesign, kill ProTools on Windows, and make a truly top-notch audio solution.
Forget about paying dividends; people are making enough money on Apple stock. Apple needs to think about how to turn its $10 billion in cash into $50 billion in cash. And the way to do that is to grow. Buy up companies!!!
Heck, maybe they could go all-solar on the Apple campus like what Google is doing.
*My personal favorite idea would be for Apple to acquire Atari dirt-cheap. This would give Apple a large library of classic titles that could be ported to the iPod, not to mention giving Apple a brand that could be used to pump out OS X "compatible" computers geared towards gamers in order to boost gaming on OS X overall and a means at gunning after Dell-owned Alienware and Dell's own XPS line.
I whole-heartedly agree with this.
Apple should be buying up companies, but only those that can give it some actual edge in competitive markets.
I'll give you three examples:
1) Adobe, for obvious reasons. This probably wont happen, but just imagine if it did!
2) EMI Music Group. This would be HUGE, but I'm not sure Apple has the cash. It might not even be legal, given the Apple (Computer) vs. Apple (Corps...the Beatles) stuff. What's even more odd is that EMI OWNS the master recordings of the Beatles.
3) Digidesign. This is the most likely, and probably the best bet for Apple. In case people don't know, Digidesign makes ProTools software and hardware. ProTools is the Photoshop of the audio production world; EVERYONE uses it. Apple already owns Emagic, which made Logic. The purchase of Digidesign would be a massive coup for Apple, and make it the undisputed champ of the pro audio world. And if you think this is a relatively small market, you're wrong. Nearly every movie is recorded/mixed in ProTools (with some people using either Nuendo or Digital Performer). I would LOVE to see Apple buy Digidesign, kill ProTools on Windows, and make a truly top-notch audio solution.
Forget about paying dividends; people are making enough money on Apple stock. Apple needs to think about how to turn its $10 billion in cash into $50 billion in cash. And the way to do that is to grow. Buy up companies!!!
Di9it8
Nov 23, 04:53 PM
Would a US .Mac code bought now work in the UK in February? ;-)
Should work anywhere from date of first use/registration:rolleyes:
Should work anywhere from date of first use/registration:rolleyes:
more...
Northgrove
May 3, 01:49 PM
I don't really get this... You already pay fees for the data - why do they care for how you use it?
Ger Teunis
Apr 29, 03:15 PM
nevermind
Nekbeth
Apr 26, 08:08 PM
Sure, good to have that clear.
Then yes, they are indeed pointers to timers. The timers are created inside their methods, I use those pointers to reference them and use invalidate.
Here is part of the code:
.h (declaration of timers)
@interface ATimerViewController : UIViewController {
Reacent Post
Then yes, they are indeed pointers to timers. The timers are created inside their methods, I use those pointers to reference them and use invalidate.
Here is part of the code:
.h (declaration of timers)
@interface ATimerViewController : UIViewController {
dieselpower44
Jul 21, 09:59 AM
It just wouldn't be an Apple discussion without at least one, "Apple is d00m3d!!!11" comment.
Well, if they treat their customers this way then what do they expect?
Imagine an icecream stand, selling icecream cones "revolutionarily" cylindrical in shape and everyone's icecream fell out the bottom. Then, they remedy this by going "ok, we'll give you all a small piece of paper to glue to the bottom that will sort of fix the problem."
Well, if they treat their customers this way then what do they expect?
Imagine an icecream stand, selling icecream cones "revolutionarily" cylindrical in shape and everyone's icecream fell out the bottom. Then, they remedy this by going "ok, we'll give you all a small piece of paper to glue to the bottom that will sort of fix the problem."
Angelo95210
Mar 9, 05:48 AM
they aren't
Could you elaborate on this? Useless reply at this point...
Actually there are some pretty innovative companies around. We here on this forum are just a bit too much focused on Apple. Apple is good to innovate on design, not that much on technology. There are some companies like Archos, Sony, LG that release interesting products too.
Could you elaborate on this? Useless reply at this point...
Actually there are some pretty innovative companies around. We here on this forum are just a bit too much focused on Apple. Apple is good to innovate on design, not that much on technology. There are some companies like Archos, Sony, LG that release interesting products too.
MacCurry
Sep 28, 01:41 PM
Is the update available now?
stefan15
Jul 24, 11:41 AM
[--micropod image--]
OMG almost killed myself laughing
OMG almost killed myself laughing
goober1223
Apr 6, 09:38 AM
And what was the motivation of the third party app makers? To make a fast buck out of serving ads to people more interested in the ad than the product. That is bad for advertisers and probably the real reason the app was rejected.
Who know whether clicks inside this app count as regular impressions? Unlike any third party, Apple is in a position to refund any advertisers for clicks on these ads. If they are doing that then I don't see anything wrong with them releasing this niche product.
I see your point, but I think that it's quite uncharitable to question the motives of individuals but let apple have a pass. They are in the position to do whatever they want, and there's no way that they WOULD reimburse those whose apps were rejected for the same function, but my point is that they shouldn't have rejected those apps at all. It's hypocritical of them to reject an app for a reason, and then when they get desperate for their iAd program to catch on more with advertisers (which apparently aren't as excited for the platform as Apple had hoped) they change their mind and create their own app.
And besides, an ad impression is an ad impression. The only iAds that I click on are accidental. If people want to download an app to see what an iAd looks like, they are also getting the best of what the advertisers had hoped for: the chance to make somebody want to use their product. They pay for the option of changing somebody's mind, not to actually do it. They pay to put the advertisement in partial view. Not to actually sell products directly.
It doesn't matter who makes the app, if they are putting the ads in front of people, they deserve the money. That goes for Apple or any of the several individuals that have already created such apps.
Who know whether clicks inside this app count as regular impressions? Unlike any third party, Apple is in a position to refund any advertisers for clicks on these ads. If they are doing that then I don't see anything wrong with them releasing this niche product.
I see your point, but I think that it's quite uncharitable to question the motives of individuals but let apple have a pass. They are in the position to do whatever they want, and there's no way that they WOULD reimburse those whose apps were rejected for the same function, but my point is that they shouldn't have rejected those apps at all. It's hypocritical of them to reject an app for a reason, and then when they get desperate for their iAd program to catch on more with advertisers (which apparently aren't as excited for the platform as Apple had hoped) they change their mind and create their own app.
And besides, an ad impression is an ad impression. The only iAds that I click on are accidental. If people want to download an app to see what an iAd looks like, they are also getting the best of what the advertisers had hoped for: the chance to make somebody want to use their product. They pay for the option of changing somebody's mind, not to actually do it. They pay to put the advertisement in partial view. Not to actually sell products directly.
It doesn't matter who makes the app, if they are putting the ads in front of people, they deserve the money. That goes for Apple or any of the several individuals that have already created such apps.
0 comments:
Post a Comment