zim
Nov 27, 06:48 AM
Did anyone else get the "Joy to the wallet" email?
Says: This Friday is our one-day shopping event. The graphic looks like the Black Friday event except that the objects blink on and off like holiday decorations. The email came to me on the 26th.... a bit confusing because I almost passed it buy thinking it was the Black Friday event but this one is for December 1st.
Oops.. just read back a few and looks like some know about it.
Says: This Friday is our one-day shopping event. The graphic looks like the Black Friday event except that the objects blink on and off like holiday decorations. The email came to me on the 26th.... a bit confusing because I almost passed it buy thinking it was the Black Friday event but this one is for December 1st.
Oops.. just read back a few and looks like some know about it.
zeroh3ro
Apr 9, 03:28 AM
http://img.game.co.uk/ml/3/5/3/6/353636ps_500h.jpg
Pokemon DSI, with pokemon black for �99 \M/
Pokemon DSI, with pokemon black for �99 \M/
aristobrat
Jan 12, 08:09 PM
the iphone, while impressive, really isnt it. a fullscreen ipod i think woulda been nice, that with the iphone woulda earned this keynote a very high ranking.
So are you doubting that the next generation of iPods won't be full screen? ;)
So are you doubting that the next generation of iPods won't be full screen? ;)
Music-Man
Sep 12, 07:33 AM
For those who a little confused about Disney.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disney#Motion_pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disney#Motion_pictures
citizenzen
Apr 23, 12:44 PM
Cite?
Thanks CM.
I'd gotten tired of asking bassfingers to back up his assertions with evidence.
His posts are often short-cited.
Thanks CM.
I'd gotten tired of asking bassfingers to back up his assertions with evidence.
His posts are often short-cited.
Benjy91
Mar 28, 03:33 PM
http://scoopertino.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/kool-aid_lime.jpg
Ooh the arguments are getting heated up in this thread :D
Thought I'd offer a light refreshment.
Ooh the arguments are getting heated up in this thread :D
Thought I'd offer a light refreshment.
MattyMac
Oct 10, 06:48 PM
Yeah, Apple isn't going to sit back and let Zune steal its lunch!
Agreed!
So please please please let it be:D
Agreed!
So please please please let it be:D
zacman
May 2, 11:34 AM
http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/5716/iphoneo.jpg
Gugulino
Mar 28, 04:02 PM
Yeah, the more popular apps get even more popular and the little apps get lost on the Mac App Store. Apple should improve this. For example Apple could list all new updates in a separate category. For now you can update your app, but no one will notice it. I am not so satisfied with the MAS, but I hope it will get better in the future.
rezenclowd3
Apr 7, 11:44 AM
^^ Yup, in the E30! That's why I bought it after all: a cheap(er) easy to fix car that is predictable and balanced at its limit, even though that is relatively low compared to more modern suspension.
Oh darn, no preregister for you? If that didn't happen here, we'd have much too full of a day and less than 14 runs that we usually get. What are you going to bring to your event? Your 325Ci again? I LOVE the E46s....
Just curious though, can you go unstaggered wheel setup with the same size stock rears in the front? That's the only thing I don't care for on the E46.
Oh darn, no preregister for you? If that didn't happen here, we'd have much too full of a day and less than 14 runs that we usually get. What are you going to bring to your event? Your 325Ci again? I LOVE the E46s....
Just curious though, can you go unstaggered wheel setup with the same size stock rears in the front? That's the only thing I don't care for on the E46.
KnightWRX
Apr 26, 09:37 AM
Oh please don't be so smart. What you say means to lose the pixel density of Retina Display. Would you want that?
Considering the treshold is 300 PPI for "Retina" at 12 inches of distance and that the iPhone 4 has 326 PPI at 3.5", yes I say we can afford to lose a few PPI for a bigger screen. In the end, it will still be "Retina" (as in you can't distinguish individual pixels at a normal viewing distance).
Anyway, it's not like a screen being "Retina" or not has any effect on a developer. If both screens are 960x640, the developer has nothing to change with his code or art at all. It will all work, no matter the actual screen size. What does being a developer even have to do with losing some PPI ? Nothing. Nothing at all.
Considering the treshold is 300 PPI for "Retina" at 12 inches of distance and that the iPhone 4 has 326 PPI at 3.5", yes I say we can afford to lose a few PPI for a bigger screen. In the end, it will still be "Retina" (as in you can't distinguish individual pixels at a normal viewing distance).
Anyway, it's not like a screen being "Retina" or not has any effect on a developer. If both screens are 960x640, the developer has nothing to change with his code or art at all. It will all work, no matter the actual screen size. What does being a developer even have to do with losing some PPI ? Nothing. Nothing at all.
Rodimus Prime
Apr 22, 06:57 PM
Whereas I agree with your post entirely, I get the feeling that you wouldn't be saying this if Apple were the only ones not to collect such data. You have bashed Google many times for the amount of data it collects, but as soon as Apple is to be seen to be doing it, it's all cool. A "non-issue.":rolleyes:
some how I think the only reason he is saying that is because Apple is the one doing it.
If it was anyone else LTD would be bashing it like no tomorrow.
My issue with it is the fact that it does not let you opt out. It would be one thing to freely give away that infomation. It is another not to be even given the option to opt out. On top of that the way Apple is doing it is even worse.
Google and Apple are in the wrong I feel. I just feel Apple is even more wrong than Google. Google at least only stores the last 50 cell towers and 200 wifi compared to Apple which keeps all of it locally.
some how I think the only reason he is saying that is because Apple is the one doing it.
If it was anyone else LTD would be bashing it like no tomorrow.
My issue with it is the fact that it does not let you opt out. It would be one thing to freely give away that infomation. It is another not to be even given the option to opt out. On top of that the way Apple is doing it is even worse.
Google and Apple are in the wrong I feel. I just feel Apple is even more wrong than Google. Google at least only stores the last 50 cell towers and 200 wifi compared to Apple which keeps all of it locally.
JoeG4
Mar 18, 09:34 PM
I admit, I do get sick of my iPhone-loving friends saying ew every time I bring out/mention my phone. Maybe they're jealous when we're in the same building they've got no signal and I've got some EDGE still. XD
JayMysterio
Nov 14, 10:24 PM
Actually a crappy story is held against many movies, tv shows, books, and etc. That's why we call them crappy and they fail. Case in recent point, the drubbing that Skyline is getting, besides it's spectacular trailer. It looks good, but it came in fourth in movies this week, and word of mouth may make that as high as it goes. The complaint? Weak stories, characters, and a truly stupid & frustrating ending.
I think what Black Ops single player suffers from is what MW2 did as well. It tries to hard, every section has to have a Michael Bay moment. The game feels it has to wow you every fifteen minutes, and in between it tries to cram in a complex story that just ends up being non sensical.
I pity anyone trying to figure MW2's story that hasn't played the original MW. I admit I was surprised to find out that MW2's story had something to do with the first one. Not because it was a clever plot twist, but because it was pulled out of thin air. There was no fore shadowing allowing the player a chance to figure things out, as usual stories do, it was just BAM!
The first MW was more stream lined with only two storylines, eventually dovetailing into one. Things were easier to follow, and the moments far more memorable. That race thru the tilted ship, the crawling thru the grass by the Russian army, holding them off later by yourself, and that final car chase were truly memorable moments. MW2 and now Black Ops are just one forgettable blur, that I only recall the trudging thru, not the fascination of what I saw.
I think what Black Ops single player suffers from is what MW2 did as well. It tries to hard, every section has to have a Michael Bay moment. The game feels it has to wow you every fifteen minutes, and in between it tries to cram in a complex story that just ends up being non sensical.
I pity anyone trying to figure MW2's story that hasn't played the original MW. I admit I was surprised to find out that MW2's story had something to do with the first one. Not because it was a clever plot twist, but because it was pulled out of thin air. There was no fore shadowing allowing the player a chance to figure things out, as usual stories do, it was just BAM!
The first MW was more stream lined with only two storylines, eventually dovetailing into one. Things were easier to follow, and the moments far more memorable. That race thru the tilted ship, the crawling thru the grass by the Russian army, holding them off later by yourself, and that final car chase were truly memorable moments. MW2 and now Black Ops are just one forgettable blur, that I only recall the trudging thru, not the fascination of what I saw.
Lord Blackadder
Aug 3, 11:20 AM
While that part is true that we would burn more fuel at power planets one advantage you are forgetting about is the power planets are by far much more efficient at producing power than the internal combustion engine on your car. On top of that it is much easier to capture and clean the pollution the power planet produces over what the cars produce. On top of that we can easily most our power over to other renewable choices.
I agree with you that series hybrids gain efficiency by running the internal combustion engine at a narrow RPM range representing the engine's most efficient speed. It's been done for over a hundred years that way in generators and a series hybrid drivetrain is set up exactly the same way as a generator.
Power plants are usually more efficent per unit of energy than autos, but right now they do not have the capacity to support a big switch to electrics. Also, the notion that power plants are cleaner than cars is debatable - many are, but many are not all that clean.
The critical point is, our power grid needs to become FAR more robust (more, bigger power plants) before we can make a large-scale switch to electrics - and it will only be worthwhile if the power grid becomes significantly more efficient. It can be done, but it will take a long, long time - and probably have to involve a significant new construction program of nuclear power plants.
I heard it that the reason why BMW stopped selling diesel cars in the US was that the engines failed, due to the very poor quality. In Europe, you can get quality fuel, but in the US, diesel is still the fuel of trucks, primarily.
Just one statistics: in continental Europe (not in the UK), new diesel cars have been outselling petrol ones for almost a decade, despite the premium.
The US began transitioning to ultra-low sulphur diesel in and by now the transition is nearly complete. The new fuel standard brings us in line with European diesel. Before the credit crunch recession hit, many car manufacturers were planning to bring Eurpoean-market diesel cars over here in slightly modified form, but those plans were scuppered in the recession. Subaru, for example, has delayed the introduction of their diesel by a year or two.
But I think diesels will start arriving here in the next couple years, and people will buy them in increasing numbers. The USA is 40 years behind in the adoption of diesel passenger cars.
You shouldn't have any impression about Subarus. They really have the traction of a train (AWD ones, of course - why would you buy anything else?!), but everything else is just midrange quality at best.
I've had a 1998 Impreza estate several years ago and it was OK. Recently, I've had a 2007 Legacy Outback from work. Nice glass on the top and good traction, but I have no intention of trading a BMW or Mercedes for it the next time. The interior is low quality and Subaru has no understanding of fuel efficiency, it seems. OK, it's a 2.5L engine, automatic and AWD, but still... 25 imperial mpg?!
It's not really fair to compare a Subaru to a BMW or Merc though, is it? Those German luxury cars are much more expensive and the AWD variants are even more expensive still. A 5-series with AWD will cost 70%-80% more than a roughly equivalent Legacy. They are very different carsm with totally different customers in mind.
I have a 2000 Forester currently. Mechanically they are well-made cars, they have a strong AWD system and I like the ride quality over rough roads, which they handle much better than the Audis I've driven.
Their biggest weaknesses are only average fuel economy (by US standards; I get about 28 mpg combined), and average interior quality, especially in the Impreza and Foresters, though I have seen the latest models and they are much better. The 2.5L four is really a great engine in a lot of ways, but it's just not quite fuel efficient enough, and in my car that problem is exacerbated by the short-ratio gearbox, which is crying for a 6th gear.
Hybrids actually have an equal to worse carbon footprint than regular gasoline engine cars due to the production and disposal process of the batteries. As such, they are not green at all. They are just another one of these ****** feel good deals for hippies with no brains an engineering knowledge.
I disagree. Real hippies don't work and thus can't afford fancy hybrids.
Of the commercially available cars, a well designed diesel, able to operate on biodiesel from waste oil for example has by far the best carbon footprint or an ethanol burner that can work on ethanol fermented from plant waste via cellulose digesting bacteria.
I would prefer if we could get to the point where we either have cars running on ethanol generated from cellulose or keratin digestion or natural gas buring engines.
Unfortunately fuel cells are not that great either because of the palladium used in the batteries that is pretty toxic in production as well.
Cheers,
Ahmed
The problem with biodiesel is that it's far too scarce to adopt widely. Sure, it's great that Joe Hippie can run his 1979 Mercedes 300D wagon on fast food grease, but once everyone starts looking into biodiesel Joe Hippie won't be getting free oil handouts anymore.
Also, biodiesel demand has already started competing with food production and I can tell you right away I'd rather eat than drive.
You're right about fuel cell carbon footprints - but that's the least of their worries now because they still cost a fortune to make and have short useful lives, making them totally unpractical to sell.
So far the biggest problem is not getting internal combustion engines to burn alternative fuels (we've found many alternative fuels) but to produce enough alternative fuel and distribute it widely enough to replace petroleum - without interrupting things like food production or power generation.
I agree with you that series hybrids gain efficiency by running the internal combustion engine at a narrow RPM range representing the engine's most efficient speed. It's been done for over a hundred years that way in generators and a series hybrid drivetrain is set up exactly the same way as a generator.
Power plants are usually more efficent per unit of energy than autos, but right now they do not have the capacity to support a big switch to electrics. Also, the notion that power plants are cleaner than cars is debatable - many are, but many are not all that clean.
The critical point is, our power grid needs to become FAR more robust (more, bigger power plants) before we can make a large-scale switch to electrics - and it will only be worthwhile if the power grid becomes significantly more efficient. It can be done, but it will take a long, long time - and probably have to involve a significant new construction program of nuclear power plants.
I heard it that the reason why BMW stopped selling diesel cars in the US was that the engines failed, due to the very poor quality. In Europe, you can get quality fuel, but in the US, diesel is still the fuel of trucks, primarily.
Just one statistics: in continental Europe (not in the UK), new diesel cars have been outselling petrol ones for almost a decade, despite the premium.
The US began transitioning to ultra-low sulphur diesel in and by now the transition is nearly complete. The new fuel standard brings us in line with European diesel. Before the credit crunch recession hit, many car manufacturers were planning to bring Eurpoean-market diesel cars over here in slightly modified form, but those plans were scuppered in the recession. Subaru, for example, has delayed the introduction of their diesel by a year or two.
But I think diesels will start arriving here in the next couple years, and people will buy them in increasing numbers. The USA is 40 years behind in the adoption of diesel passenger cars.
You shouldn't have any impression about Subarus. They really have the traction of a train (AWD ones, of course - why would you buy anything else?!), but everything else is just midrange quality at best.
I've had a 1998 Impreza estate several years ago and it was OK. Recently, I've had a 2007 Legacy Outback from work. Nice glass on the top and good traction, but I have no intention of trading a BMW or Mercedes for it the next time. The interior is low quality and Subaru has no understanding of fuel efficiency, it seems. OK, it's a 2.5L engine, automatic and AWD, but still... 25 imperial mpg?!
It's not really fair to compare a Subaru to a BMW or Merc though, is it? Those German luxury cars are much more expensive and the AWD variants are even more expensive still. A 5-series with AWD will cost 70%-80% more than a roughly equivalent Legacy. They are very different carsm with totally different customers in mind.
I have a 2000 Forester currently. Mechanically they are well-made cars, they have a strong AWD system and I like the ride quality over rough roads, which they handle much better than the Audis I've driven.
Their biggest weaknesses are only average fuel economy (by US standards; I get about 28 mpg combined), and average interior quality, especially in the Impreza and Foresters, though I have seen the latest models and they are much better. The 2.5L four is really a great engine in a lot of ways, but it's just not quite fuel efficient enough, and in my car that problem is exacerbated by the short-ratio gearbox, which is crying for a 6th gear.
Hybrids actually have an equal to worse carbon footprint than regular gasoline engine cars due to the production and disposal process of the batteries. As such, they are not green at all. They are just another one of these ****** feel good deals for hippies with no brains an engineering knowledge.
I disagree. Real hippies don't work and thus can't afford fancy hybrids.
Of the commercially available cars, a well designed diesel, able to operate on biodiesel from waste oil for example has by far the best carbon footprint or an ethanol burner that can work on ethanol fermented from plant waste via cellulose digesting bacteria.
I would prefer if we could get to the point where we either have cars running on ethanol generated from cellulose or keratin digestion or natural gas buring engines.
Unfortunately fuel cells are not that great either because of the palladium used in the batteries that is pretty toxic in production as well.
Cheers,
Ahmed
The problem with biodiesel is that it's far too scarce to adopt widely. Sure, it's great that Joe Hippie can run his 1979 Mercedes 300D wagon on fast food grease, but once everyone starts looking into biodiesel Joe Hippie won't be getting free oil handouts anymore.
Also, biodiesel demand has already started competing with food production and I can tell you right away I'd rather eat than drive.
You're right about fuel cell carbon footprints - but that's the least of their worries now because they still cost a fortune to make and have short useful lives, making them totally unpractical to sell.
So far the biggest problem is not getting internal combustion engines to burn alternative fuels (we've found many alternative fuels) but to produce enough alternative fuel and distribute it widely enough to replace petroleum - without interrupting things like food production or power generation.
nosen
Sep 28, 12:45 PM
what sucks is that academic ve4rsions are not allowed this free update.
what bs. considering i just bought the freakin app not more than 3 weeks ago.
where did you see that? :confused:
what bs. considering i just bought the freakin app not more than 3 weeks ago.
where did you see that? :confused:
Lord Blackadder
May 5, 06:24 PM
If we were to implement restrictions it would have to be nation-wide, or else it would be too easily thwarted.
What do we do with the 200 million legally owned guns? Not to mention the unknown (but surely quite significant) number of illegally owned or stolen guns we can't even track?
I think any talk of a blanket ban is pure folly and ignores the reality of the situation.
The biggest problem is just how far apart people are on this issue. People with little or no exposure to guns generally fear them and support draconian bans; people who grew up surrounded by them are much more likely to support some level of gun ownership, but a vocal minority of them want to do away with most or all regulation. I think both extreme positions (seeking to ban most/all guns vs advocating little/no regulation) are unrealistic and need to be abandoned.
The NRA's current policy leans heavily towards automatic knee-jerk attacks towards any person or organization that might appear to criticise or question any aspect of firearms ownership, or to undertake any scientific study involving guns, safety, culture, crime, etc etc. Speaking as a gun owner myself, I think the NRA is a wayward, counterproductive organization that is far too combative and has strayed too far from their original purpose, becoming in the process a horrible caricature of itself. On the other hand, a large chunk of the anti-gun lobby consists of fearmongers who are themselves largely ignorant when it comes to firearms and prey on the ignorance and fear of people to gain support.
The whole political debate is broken, and I see no evidence that this will ever change. Both sides fear nothing more than concession to their opponent, so an eternal stalemate will continue.
The OP is an example of just how far from reality the "gun debate" in this country has strayed.
What do we do with the 200 million legally owned guns? Not to mention the unknown (but surely quite significant) number of illegally owned or stolen guns we can't even track?
I think any talk of a blanket ban is pure folly and ignores the reality of the situation.
The biggest problem is just how far apart people are on this issue. People with little or no exposure to guns generally fear them and support draconian bans; people who grew up surrounded by them are much more likely to support some level of gun ownership, but a vocal minority of them want to do away with most or all regulation. I think both extreme positions (seeking to ban most/all guns vs advocating little/no regulation) are unrealistic and need to be abandoned.
The NRA's current policy leans heavily towards automatic knee-jerk attacks towards any person or organization that might appear to criticise or question any aspect of firearms ownership, or to undertake any scientific study involving guns, safety, culture, crime, etc etc. Speaking as a gun owner myself, I think the NRA is a wayward, counterproductive organization that is far too combative and has strayed too far from their original purpose, becoming in the process a horrible caricature of itself. On the other hand, a large chunk of the anti-gun lobby consists of fearmongers who are themselves largely ignorant when it comes to firearms and prey on the ignorance and fear of people to gain support.
The whole political debate is broken, and I see no evidence that this will ever change. Both sides fear nothing more than concession to their opponent, so an eternal stalemate will continue.
The OP is an example of just how far from reality the "gun debate" in this country has strayed.
Chip NoVaMac
Mar 9, 11:39 PM
That's a bit of a superficial hypothesis you got. The majority of computers in the world are still Microsoft based. Perhaps businesses are switching to Apple but for now, the world is not at all run by Apple. Not even close. Once Steve controls the market like Bill and becomes half as rich as he is, we may consider talking. You need more experience in life son, as one person said, turn off your Apple product and look outside your window, there's life that doesn't breath Apple.
No the world is not run by Apple; and despite some folks claims Apple I don't think wants to be the next Microsoft either.... it does want to own a comfortable niche however...
No the world is not run by Apple; and despite some folks claims Apple I don't think wants to be the next Microsoft either.... it does want to own a comfortable niche however...
MonkeyET
Dec 13, 11:11 AM
This is not going to happen. I don't see how it fits in with anything. Maybe an LTE next round (6th Generation). Plus I just bought my iPhone, switched from Verizon. I wouldn't want to believe that this would be true as I was unable to wait and see!
crap freakboy
Jan 5, 05:43 PM
Excellent work MR.
Stops me sneaking a look before the stream is available.
Now I can watch after the kids and 'er indoors are asleep.
Fantastic.
Stops me sneaking a look before the stream is available.
Now I can watch after the kids and 'er indoors are asleep.
Fantastic.
mcmadhatter
Oct 17, 09:46 AM
I'm not sure about what you're saying here, because content producers will still be having to supply the same film in two different formats.
No they won't they can produce their film in whatever format they like because all players would be dual format so it wouldn't matter, they wouldn't even need those fancy hybrid discs
They'll likely drop the less popular format, and thus, we'll have a winner. This could happen though it is unlikely with dual format drives
DVD +/- is a writing thing. It's not the same, because people don't care where they get their blank discs from as much.
When it was going on it was a big thing, because a lot of dvd Players would only Play one type of disc so if you recorded to + and your friend had - they would not be able to play it
More simply, I'm curious of who out there needs to burn 30 to 50 GB chunks of data, too large for a dual layer DVD to hold, and why.
I do , I have 140Gb of Photos from my DSLR (and previous digital cameras) putting this on 3 discs rather than 40 discs would be great
I also have 28Gb of music, backing up form itunes to 1 disc rather than 8 would also be useful
External drives are very easy to break beyond repair with osx (3 different NEW external drives, 3 different disk manufacturers disks, and the longest they lasted without dying so badly they needed an RMA was 72 hours) and dvd blueray etc discs take up less space, and you have the possibility of having 3-4 copies.
No they won't they can produce their film in whatever format they like because all players would be dual format so it wouldn't matter, they wouldn't even need those fancy hybrid discs
They'll likely drop the less popular format, and thus, we'll have a winner. This could happen though it is unlikely with dual format drives
DVD +/- is a writing thing. It's not the same, because people don't care where they get their blank discs from as much.
When it was going on it was a big thing, because a lot of dvd Players would only Play one type of disc so if you recorded to + and your friend had - they would not be able to play it
More simply, I'm curious of who out there needs to burn 30 to 50 GB chunks of data, too large for a dual layer DVD to hold, and why.
I do , I have 140Gb of Photos from my DSLR (and previous digital cameras) putting this on 3 discs rather than 40 discs would be great
I also have 28Gb of music, backing up form itunes to 1 disc rather than 8 would also be useful
External drives are very easy to break beyond repair with osx (3 different NEW external drives, 3 different disk manufacturers disks, and the longest they lasted without dying so badly they needed an RMA was 72 hours) and dvd blueray etc discs take up less space, and you have the possibility of having 3-4 copies.
*LTD*
Apr 10, 09:36 AM
man you post that and then make me fire up IE so I can read his trolling post and remind myself why I have him on the ignore list. Quick skim and just reminded me not to take him off.
Reason for IE being fired up is that is my only browser on this computer that I do not have set to Autolog in.
From an earlier date:
read threw it. Seems to me just like standard Apple Fanboy post trying to twist the truth from what it really is.
Suggest you link to an article that is not trying to hide behind that fact.
Reminded me yet again that i should of just left you on my ignore list. Back you go.
There are other examples.
Dude, commenting on my posts and then announcing to everyone you have me on Ignore means you're not ignoring my posts.
Just sayin. But I'm quite flattered by your continued attention.
Reason for IE being fired up is that is my only browser on this computer that I do not have set to Autolog in.
From an earlier date:
read threw it. Seems to me just like standard Apple Fanboy post trying to twist the truth from what it really is.
Suggest you link to an article that is not trying to hide behind that fact.
Reminded me yet again that i should of just left you on my ignore list. Back you go.
There are other examples.
Dude, commenting on my posts and then announcing to everyone you have me on Ignore means you're not ignoring my posts.
Just sayin. But I'm quite flattered by your continued attention.
The Scotsman
Jan 12, 06:36 PM
Look, people--
There is nothing amazingly new or innovative technology-wise in the iPhone. Everything in it has been done before, and it does not even employ some of the latest (3G) features that its competition does.
Niether did the original iPod. Grasshopper, go and learn from Thread #500. People thought that product was "crippled" by high price and no new technology ("An overpriced HDD-based mp3 player with a B&W LCD display? Who cares?").
I predict that Apple will have 20% of the entire cell phone market and 50+% of the high-end communication device within three years of its June release. That will mean 150-200 million units.
In the intervening six months before formal release, or shortly thereafter, some of the smaller issues will be attended to (like the ability to at least open and review MS files, sync'ing issues, interfacing w/iTunes Store, what have you). The rest won't matter.
Apple does not sell products, people. They sell personal productivity, great user experiences, wow and chic. This phone phone meets all of those criteria. For consumer devices like these, a streamlined and intuitive user experience is like money in the bank. The only thing innovative about the iPod is the stupid click-wheel, and yet 75% of the ENTIRE aac/mp3 player market is controlled by ONE COMPANY. The one with the click-wheel.
So it is with this product. If the final build quality of the unit proves durable, reliable, and cosmetically superior, and the unit functions as billed, it will not only make a huge forray into that giant market, but essentially create a new one.
Right now, the "smartphone" is really a piece of business equipment. Apple just invented the quintessential "consumer" version of the same product. It doesn't matter that it is expensive or lacks some high-end features. If is actually works as effortlessly and seamlessly as billed, it will become another cultural icon. Apple marketing will see to it that everyone on the planet is aware of how "cool" this device is.
I'm glad to be on record here. I hope that when this thread is reviewed three years from now, everyone is talking about the foolish naysayers of Thread #3245138 (or whatever this one is).
I agree with your predictions but I do not think it will be got with the 1st gen iPhone. iPod was not good until a range started and I think the phone will be the same.
There is nothing amazingly new or innovative technology-wise in the iPhone. Everything in it has been done before, and it does not even employ some of the latest (3G) features that its competition does.
Niether did the original iPod. Grasshopper, go and learn from Thread #500. People thought that product was "crippled" by high price and no new technology ("An overpriced HDD-based mp3 player with a B&W LCD display? Who cares?").
I predict that Apple will have 20% of the entire cell phone market and 50+% of the high-end communication device within three years of its June release. That will mean 150-200 million units.
In the intervening six months before formal release, or shortly thereafter, some of the smaller issues will be attended to (like the ability to at least open and review MS files, sync'ing issues, interfacing w/iTunes Store, what have you). The rest won't matter.
Apple does not sell products, people. They sell personal productivity, great user experiences, wow and chic. This phone phone meets all of those criteria. For consumer devices like these, a streamlined and intuitive user experience is like money in the bank. The only thing innovative about the iPod is the stupid click-wheel, and yet 75% of the ENTIRE aac/mp3 player market is controlled by ONE COMPANY. The one with the click-wheel.
So it is with this product. If the final build quality of the unit proves durable, reliable, and cosmetically superior, and the unit functions as billed, it will not only make a huge forray into that giant market, but essentially create a new one.
Right now, the "smartphone" is really a piece of business equipment. Apple just invented the quintessential "consumer" version of the same product. It doesn't matter that it is expensive or lacks some high-end features. If is actually works as effortlessly and seamlessly as billed, it will become another cultural icon. Apple marketing will see to it that everyone on the planet is aware of how "cool" this device is.
I'm glad to be on record here. I hope that when this thread is reviewed three years from now, everyone is talking about the foolish naysayers of Thread #3245138 (or whatever this one is).
I agree with your predictions but I do not think it will be got with the 1st gen iPhone. iPod was not good until a range started and I think the phone will be the same.
wlh99
Apr 26, 05:44 PM
I'm aware of that ulbador, and my point is that like any other language.. you get better with time & practice. Nobody FORCES you or dejo to read my threads, or answer them. If you see lack of objective-C fundamentals, just go to another thread (for Pros), is that simple. Some people like to help, others laugh, others ignore you or get frustrated because they can't read ... who cares man, if you don't like the thread just go to another one but never try to discourage a person who's starting to learn, that I'm against.
(about the code) Thanks for pointing that out, I needed a variable, after that I created a timer appropriately and used the variable as a reference to trigger my cancel methods (invalidate).
Have you read the documentation for NSTimer?
+ (NSTimer *)scheduledTimerWithTimeInterval:(NSTimeInterval)seconds invocation:(NSInvocation *)invocation repeats:(BOOL)repeats
The above line has your answer.
(about the code) Thanks for pointing that out, I needed a variable, after that I created a timer appropriately and used the variable as a reference to trigger my cancel methods (invalidate).
Have you read the documentation for NSTimer?
+ (NSTimer *)scheduledTimerWithTimeInterval:(NSTimeInterval)seconds invocation:(NSInvocation *)invocation repeats:(BOOL)repeats
The above line has your answer.
0 comments:
Post a Comment