dicklacara
Jul 27, 10:27 PM
The next gen of chips has 4 core versions of conroe and woodcrest, each with the same sockets as the ones they're replacing. Not sure if there will be a 4 core merom.
Pretty cool, but it needs a real name, MAC won't cut it. Maybe Mac Express?
And it wouldn't have FW800 or a second optical slot. Probably a second HD slot instead. And I'd guess it would be more of a pizza box enclosure, but that's wild speculation. Your price is probably way too low, too.
How about Mac Midi?
Pretty cool, but it needs a real name, MAC won't cut it. Maybe Mac Express?
And it wouldn't have FW800 or a second optical slot. Probably a second HD slot instead. And I'd guess it would be more of a pizza box enclosure, but that's wild speculation. Your price is probably way too low, too.
How about Mac Midi?
hayesk
Mar 26, 02:39 PM
Yet another unimpressive "major" update to an O/S that's showing it's age and irrelevance. (Hell it's already to most consumers nothing more than "That thing you gotta hook your iPad up to to make it work.) Compared to the iDevice world, the computer side of Apple has ground to a halt. Is it intentional I wonder...? ;)
Enough!! Combine MacOS and iOS already!!! The transition is so painfully slow, would someone else in tech get off their lazy ass and prod these guys to move a LITTLE quicker?!?
Consumers don't care about the OS at all, on a desktop or on an iOS device. They care about using their computer to do tasks. The more the OS becomes invisible to the user, the better.
I also have to laugh at the people complaining that Lion has nothing to offer at the same time they are complaining that it's turning into iOS. Do you want the OS to progress or stay the same? Make up your minds. What do these people want Lion to have. I'm guessing they can't imagine anything beyond including some third party utilities that they already use.
Enough!! Combine MacOS and iOS already!!! The transition is so painfully slow, would someone else in tech get off their lazy ass and prod these guys to move a LITTLE quicker?!?
Consumers don't care about the OS at all, on a desktop or on an iOS device. They care about using their computer to do tasks. The more the OS becomes invisible to the user, the better.
I also have to laugh at the people complaining that Lion has nothing to offer at the same time they are complaining that it's turning into iOS. Do you want the OS to progress or stay the same? Make up your minds. What do these people want Lion to have. I'm guessing they can't imagine anything beyond including some third party utilities that they already use.
chrmjenkins
Apr 6, 12:00 PM
Sure clock speed isn't everything. But you better go read up some more on Tue Intel HD3000 IGP. You're using facts from the STD voltage SB IGP and applying them to the ULV SB IGP. Go read about the graphics on the Samsung Series 9 laptops. The 13" model uses this very chip cited. It shows greater than a 50% drop in graphics performance from the 320m to ULV IGP used in SB.
This has been the problem all along with everyone. They're attributing facts that are actually fallacies to this Intel IGP.
Are you comparing it to a MBA with 320M or a 13" MBP with 320M? The latter is unfair because it is not analogous to the CPU and GPU speed in an ultra-portable like the series 9 or MBP.
Are you smoking something? Sure the IGP used in SB 13" MBP might get some fudged numbers by those who report for Apple, but you think the ULV SB IGP is going to even compare to the 320m on any level??? Huh? You are far smarter than that.
A lot of people using the 13" MBP in comparison when there are almost no similaries.
I don't believe a ULV CPU gets used in the 13" MBA. I don't believe this CPU in the story gets used in the 13" MBA. I don't believe Apple is dumb enough to ruin the MBA brand AGAIN with Intel's IGP at this time. I don't believe that what Apple does in the 13" MBP has any correlation with the MBA because the IGP is different. I believe when Apple and Nvidia said Apple will use the Nvidia chipset and GPU for a long time they were specifically citing the MBA, as it make no sense for the MBA to be so challenged as to get such an inferior design leading to tragic real world results.
In 2012 the MBA will get an update when it actually makes sense. People waiting for a ULV SB chip in the 13" MBA will be waiting a long time. People waiting or expecting SB IGP to even compare in ULV variants will be waiting forever as they cannot match the Nvidia offering with the underclocked IGP.
This story is ridiculous as written.
Just exactly what end use do you imagine being crippled in the MBA by going from a 320M to a HD3000 IGP? Surely you don't suggest that the number of people gaming on the MBA and who demand that performance is sufficient enough to determine the fate of the product line or even approach appreciable numbers in sales.
This has been the problem all along with everyone. They're attributing facts that are actually fallacies to this Intel IGP.
Are you comparing it to a MBA with 320M or a 13" MBP with 320M? The latter is unfair because it is not analogous to the CPU and GPU speed in an ultra-portable like the series 9 or MBP.
Are you smoking something? Sure the IGP used in SB 13" MBP might get some fudged numbers by those who report for Apple, but you think the ULV SB IGP is going to even compare to the 320m on any level??? Huh? You are far smarter than that.
A lot of people using the 13" MBP in comparison when there are almost no similaries.
I don't believe a ULV CPU gets used in the 13" MBA. I don't believe this CPU in the story gets used in the 13" MBA. I don't believe Apple is dumb enough to ruin the MBA brand AGAIN with Intel's IGP at this time. I don't believe that what Apple does in the 13" MBP has any correlation with the MBA because the IGP is different. I believe when Apple and Nvidia said Apple will use the Nvidia chipset and GPU for a long time they were specifically citing the MBA, as it make no sense for the MBA to be so challenged as to get such an inferior design leading to tragic real world results.
In 2012 the MBA will get an update when it actually makes sense. People waiting for a ULV SB chip in the 13" MBA will be waiting a long time. People waiting or expecting SB IGP to even compare in ULV variants will be waiting forever as they cannot match the Nvidia offering with the underclocked IGP.
This story is ridiculous as written.
Just exactly what end use do you imagine being crippled in the MBA by going from a 320M to a HD3000 IGP? Surely you don't suggest that the number of people gaming on the MBA and who demand that performance is sufficient enough to determine the fate of the product line or even approach appreciable numbers in sales.
whatever
Jul 20, 07:37 PM
yeah, what he said. Apple does not have to distinguish powermacs from servers with processor speeds. People (businesses) who need servers are not going to buy powermacs to do the job even if they are a little bit faster or cheaper; they are going to buy real rack-mounted servers.
Now you're not thinking like a competitive company that needs to continue to make money.
Sun is on the ropes and Apple now has a chance to soar in and take a lot of business from them.
Now you're not thinking like a competitive company that needs to continue to make money.
Sun is on the ropes and Apple now has a chance to soar in and take a lot of business from them.
lazyrighteye
Aug 11, 10:33 AM
*woot*
Please let it be good so I can trash my Treo.
My Treo is best smart phone I have used. That said, it's nowhere NEAR where I expect an Apple offering to be - when/if discussing integration.
Depending on what Apple unveils, I am very ready to cut my contract w/ VZW if it means a better user experience than what I am getting now.
Please let it be good so I can trash my Treo.
My Treo is best smart phone I have used. That said, it's nowhere NEAR where I expect an Apple offering to be - when/if discussing integration.
Depending on what Apple unveils, I am very ready to cut my contract w/ VZW if it means a better user experience than what I am getting now.
DCJ001
Mar 26, 07:57 PM
im using snow leopard, will all my documents and apps gone if i upgrade to lion ?
PowerPC (Rosetta) emulation is no longer offered. That means if you have any PowerPC applications they won't be able to run in Mac OS X Lion. You can determine if you are still running PowerPC applications by going into Applications -> Utilities -> System Profiler -> Applications and viewing "By Kind". This will show you which applications you have that are running under PowerPC. Rosetta had already become an optional install in Snow Leopard, and it appears Apple will be removing support for it entirely in Lion.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1104601
PowerPC (Rosetta) emulation is no longer offered. That means if you have any PowerPC applications they won't be able to run in Mac OS X Lion. You can determine if you are still running PowerPC applications by going into Applications -> Utilities -> System Profiler -> Applications and viewing "By Kind". This will show you which applications you have that are running under PowerPC. Rosetta had already become an optional install in Snow Leopard, and it appears Apple will be removing support for it entirely in Lion.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1104601
deannnnn
Jun 9, 08:44 AM
I have a feeling that those trade-in prices will be substantially reduced once the iPhone 4 is released.
aafuss1
Aug 6, 05:23 PM
Mike,
I know you're concerned about name-maybe Apple could license the use to you.
Leopard-Public beta like Vista. No-as it can be easily uploaded to torrent sites-like with the Tiger leaks. Apple should keep the preview ADC members only.
I know you're concerned about name-maybe Apple could license the use to you.
Leopard-Public beta like Vista. No-as it can be easily uploaded to torrent sites-like with the Tiger leaks. Apple should keep the preview ADC members only.
bedifferent
Apr 27, 08:56 AM
For the paranoid people who don't understand the issue and believe everything our media tells us to fear (coughFoxNewscough), here's something amusing for the mindless:
"Meat with eyes" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNGWn-aWn5g)
"Meat with eyes" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yNGWn-aWn5g)
kdarling
Apr 20, 04:34 PM
Knowing about the record label wasn't on the front page of the newspaper, this was the 1970's...there was no internet, it's more than just a little possible that Jobs did not know this. And you're assuming that logo was everywhere, and you're wrong.
Actually, anyone above the age of six knew about Apple Records.
We all lived and breathed vinyl back then :)
Actually, anyone above the age of six knew about Apple Records.
We all lived and breathed vinyl back then :)
tk421
Nov 28, 09:34 PM
I'll just say what I said here (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=3036851#post3036851) again:
“It’s a major change for the industry,” David Geffen told N.Y. Times reporter Jeff Leeds, who broke the story. “Each of these devices is used to store unpaid-for material. This way, on top of the material people do pay for, the record companies are getting paid on the devices storing the copied music.”
"This agreement with Microsoft around Zune is a significant milestone for our company and our artists," said Morris in a statement. “This move demonstrates there can be a win-win situation where consumers have a great experience while labels and artists are also fairly compensated. We applaud Microsoft for its innovative and consumer-friendly Zune store and device."
Microsoft Corporate VP of Entertainment & Devices Bryan Lee chimed in: "This is an industry in transition, and we at Zune feel that artists should be paid fairly. The agreement we are announcing today is one of many innovations we plan on introducing to the entertainment industry with our partners and highlights our commitment to growing the digital music space. We believe that the music consumer will appreciate knowing that when they buy a Zune device, they are helping their favorite artists get paid."
It sounds to me like they are saying anyone that buys a digital music player is a thief. They are broadly accusing each of us of stealing from artists. I don't appreciate that, and I think we should all voice our disapproval.
Universal Music Group:
USA (212) 841 8000
France +33 1 44 41 91 91
UK +44 0 20 77 47 4000
feedback_fr@vivendi.com
Phone calls are more effective than email, but feel free to do either.
Do we really want the music labels getting a cut of our hardware purchases?!?
“It’s a major change for the industry,” David Geffen told N.Y. Times reporter Jeff Leeds, who broke the story. “Each of these devices is used to store unpaid-for material. This way, on top of the material people do pay for, the record companies are getting paid on the devices storing the copied music.”
"This agreement with Microsoft around Zune is a significant milestone for our company and our artists," said Morris in a statement. “This move demonstrates there can be a win-win situation where consumers have a great experience while labels and artists are also fairly compensated. We applaud Microsoft for its innovative and consumer-friendly Zune store and device."
Microsoft Corporate VP of Entertainment & Devices Bryan Lee chimed in: "This is an industry in transition, and we at Zune feel that artists should be paid fairly. The agreement we are announcing today is one of many innovations we plan on introducing to the entertainment industry with our partners and highlights our commitment to growing the digital music space. We believe that the music consumer will appreciate knowing that when they buy a Zune device, they are helping their favorite artists get paid."
It sounds to me like they are saying anyone that buys a digital music player is a thief. They are broadly accusing each of us of stealing from artists. I don't appreciate that, and I think we should all voice our disapproval.
Universal Music Group:
USA (212) 841 8000
France +33 1 44 41 91 91
UK +44 0 20 77 47 4000
feedback_fr@vivendi.com
Phone calls are more effective than email, but feel free to do either.
Do we really want the music labels getting a cut of our hardware purchases?!?
MCIowaRulz
Apr 5, 08:35 PM
4GB download with in-app purchases for content would be my guess.
I hope they ship it on DVD as i'm not going to tie up my Internet connection for 3 hrs while it downloads:(
I hope they ship it on DVD as i'm not going to tie up my Internet connection for 3 hrs while it downloads:(
Hellhammer
Dec 3, 03:06 PM
Do you get a prize car for finishing a series in Aspec races with all gold? Like I just need to finish one more race, but I can't find a used car to get into it. It's the first series of races, beginner I am assuming.
Some of them do but not sure do all of them. I've got several nice rides from those series but they are mainly from higher level series.
Some of them do but not sure do all of them. I've got several nice rides from those series but they are mainly from higher level series.
Blue Velvet
Mar 23, 06:11 AM
Libya is more like Bosnia than Iraq. A moment of force has the potential to change the scope of the conflict, hopefully for the positive, in a way that a full-blown invasion would merely complicate. That's the central part that fivepoint, who is merely interested in making another partisan screed, is ignoring.
Well exactly. Far easier to tag together some buzzwords, maybe pull something from FoxNews than it is to think critically about the issue. This inane comparison between coalition numbers was also picked up by Steve M.:
Fox Nation huffily declares that "Bush Had 2 Times More Coalition Partners in Iraq Than Obama Has in Libya." Bush's thirty-nation list, of course, included such global powers as Azerbaijan, Estonia, Latvia, and Uzbekistan, and didn't include the likes of, y'know, Germany and France.
But if we're going to play games like this, in the run-up to the war, how many coalition partners did Bush attract per week? The Libyan uprising started just about a month ago and Obama's coalition is fifteen nations. When do you date the start of the "Iraq crisis" the Bushies manufactured? The Axis of Evil speech, fourteen months before the war began? The Battle of Tora Bora, a month before that? The first administration meetings on Iraq regime change, mere days after Bush's inauguration, and more than two years before the Iraq War started? By that standard, Bush barely acquired one coalition partner a month! Obama obtained more than three partners a week!
I'm reminded of the 2000 electoral maps that measured Bush's vote by geography, as if winning a county with more jackrabbits than people was the equivalent of winning a county full of apartment buildings.
http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2011/03/well-if-were-going-to-be-ridiculous.html
Meanwhile, Juan Cole lays out ten reasons why this is not like Iraq:
Here are the differences between George W. Bush�s invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the current United Nations action in Libya:
1. The action in Libya was authorized by the United Nations Security Council. That in Iraq was not. By the UN Charter, military action after 1945 should either come as self-defense or with UNSC authorization. Most countries in the world are signatories to the charter and bound by its provisions.
2. The Libyan people had risen up and thrown off the Qaddafi regime, with some 80-90 percent of the country having gone out of his hands before he started having tank commanders fire shells into peaceful crowds. It was this vast majority of the Libyan people that demanded the UN no-fly zone. In 2002-3 there was no similar popular movement against Saddam Hussein.
3. There was an ongoing massacre of civilians, and the threat of more such massacres in Benghazi, by the Qaddafi regime, which precipitated the UNSC resolution. Although the Saddam Hussein regime had massacred people in the 1980s and early 1990s, nothing was going on in 2002-2003 that would have required international intervention.
4. The Arab League urged the UNSC to take action against the Qaddafi regime, and in many ways precipitated Resolution 1973. The Arab League met in 2002 and expressed opposition to a war on Iraq. (Reports of Arab League backtracking on Sunday were incorrect, based on a remark of outgoing Secretary-General Amr Moussa that criticized the taking out of anti-aircraft batteries. The Arab League reaffirmed Sunday and Moussa agreed Monday that the No-Fly Zone is what it wants).
5. None of the United Nations allies envisages landing troops on the ground, nor does the UNSC authorize it. Iraq was invaded by land forces.
6. No false allegations were made against the Qaddafi regime, of being in league with al-Qaeda or of having a nuclear weapons program. The charge is massacre of peaceful civilian demonstrators and an actual promise to commit more such massacres.
7. The United States did not take the lead role in urging a no-fly zone, and was dragged into this action by its Arab and European allies. President Obama pledges that the US role, mainly disabling anti-aircraft batteries and bombing runways, will last �days, not months� before being turned over to other United Nations allies.
8. There is no sectarian or ethnic dimension to the Libyan conflict, whereas the US Pentagon conspired with Shiite and Kurdish parties to overthrow the Sunni-dominated Baathist regime in Iraq, setting the stage for a prolonged and bitter civil war.
9. The US has not rewarded countries such as Norway for entering the conflict as UN allies, but rather a genuine sense of outrage at the brutal crimes against humanity being committed by Qaddafi and his forces impelled the formation of this coalition. The Bush administration�s �coalition of the willing� in contrast was often brought on board by what were essentially bribes.
10. Iraq in 2002-3 no longer posed a credible threat to its neighbors. A resurgent Qaddafi in Libya with petroleum billions at his disposal would likely attempt to undermine the democratic experiments in Tunisia and Egypt, blighting the lives of millions.
http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/top-ten-ways-that-libya-2011-is-not-iraq-2003.html
Well exactly. Far easier to tag together some buzzwords, maybe pull something from FoxNews than it is to think critically about the issue. This inane comparison between coalition numbers was also picked up by Steve M.:
Fox Nation huffily declares that "Bush Had 2 Times More Coalition Partners in Iraq Than Obama Has in Libya." Bush's thirty-nation list, of course, included such global powers as Azerbaijan, Estonia, Latvia, and Uzbekistan, and didn't include the likes of, y'know, Germany and France.
But if we're going to play games like this, in the run-up to the war, how many coalition partners did Bush attract per week? The Libyan uprising started just about a month ago and Obama's coalition is fifteen nations. When do you date the start of the "Iraq crisis" the Bushies manufactured? The Axis of Evil speech, fourteen months before the war began? The Battle of Tora Bora, a month before that? The first administration meetings on Iraq regime change, mere days after Bush's inauguration, and more than two years before the Iraq War started? By that standard, Bush barely acquired one coalition partner a month! Obama obtained more than three partners a week!
I'm reminded of the 2000 electoral maps that measured Bush's vote by geography, as if winning a county with more jackrabbits than people was the equivalent of winning a county full of apartment buildings.
http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2011/03/well-if-were-going-to-be-ridiculous.html
Meanwhile, Juan Cole lays out ten reasons why this is not like Iraq:
Here are the differences between George W. Bush�s invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the current United Nations action in Libya:
1. The action in Libya was authorized by the United Nations Security Council. That in Iraq was not. By the UN Charter, military action after 1945 should either come as self-defense or with UNSC authorization. Most countries in the world are signatories to the charter and bound by its provisions.
2. The Libyan people had risen up and thrown off the Qaddafi regime, with some 80-90 percent of the country having gone out of his hands before he started having tank commanders fire shells into peaceful crowds. It was this vast majority of the Libyan people that demanded the UN no-fly zone. In 2002-3 there was no similar popular movement against Saddam Hussein.
3. There was an ongoing massacre of civilians, and the threat of more such massacres in Benghazi, by the Qaddafi regime, which precipitated the UNSC resolution. Although the Saddam Hussein regime had massacred people in the 1980s and early 1990s, nothing was going on in 2002-2003 that would have required international intervention.
4. The Arab League urged the UNSC to take action against the Qaddafi regime, and in many ways precipitated Resolution 1973. The Arab League met in 2002 and expressed opposition to a war on Iraq. (Reports of Arab League backtracking on Sunday were incorrect, based on a remark of outgoing Secretary-General Amr Moussa that criticized the taking out of anti-aircraft batteries. The Arab League reaffirmed Sunday and Moussa agreed Monday that the No-Fly Zone is what it wants).
5. None of the United Nations allies envisages landing troops on the ground, nor does the UNSC authorize it. Iraq was invaded by land forces.
6. No false allegations were made against the Qaddafi regime, of being in league with al-Qaeda or of having a nuclear weapons program. The charge is massacre of peaceful civilian demonstrators and an actual promise to commit more such massacres.
7. The United States did not take the lead role in urging a no-fly zone, and was dragged into this action by its Arab and European allies. President Obama pledges that the US role, mainly disabling anti-aircraft batteries and bombing runways, will last �days, not months� before being turned over to other United Nations allies.
8. There is no sectarian or ethnic dimension to the Libyan conflict, whereas the US Pentagon conspired with Shiite and Kurdish parties to overthrow the Sunni-dominated Baathist regime in Iraq, setting the stage for a prolonged and bitter civil war.
9. The US has not rewarded countries such as Norway for entering the conflict as UN allies, but rather a genuine sense of outrage at the brutal crimes against humanity being committed by Qaddafi and his forces impelled the formation of this coalition. The Bush administration�s �coalition of the willing� in contrast was often brought on board by what were essentially bribes.
10. Iraq in 2002-3 no longer posed a credible threat to its neighbors. A resurgent Qaddafi in Libya with petroleum billions at his disposal would likely attempt to undermine the democratic experiments in Tunisia and Egypt, blighting the lives of millions.
http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/top-ten-ways-that-libya-2011-is-not-iraq-2003.html
Amazing Iceman
Apr 7, 10:50 PM
Don't be a troll :rolleyes:
Obviously you know little about trolls... :D (JK!)
Obviously you know little about trolls... :D (JK!)
NewSc2
Sep 19, 02:18 AM
Does it even MATTER if Apple keeps up? Do we actually WANT Apple to release a new computer every month when Intel bumps up their chips a few megahertz?
See, it's easy to get lost in the specs war. The Mac Pros came out and I was salivating, even though I have a dual 2.0GHz G5 sitting at home. And then one day, as I was editing some HD footage, it occurred ot me that my G5 here - my now outdated G5 - was editing 1080p high-def footage without so much as a flinch. It was SO fast it was not even necessary at all.
So I really have to ask - does Apple really need to get into that stupid-ass PC specs war? Is it really hurting you guys that Apple has been slow to update? Are you really doing tasks that the current computer lineup cannot do?
Hm, well my Powerbook runs barely 4 instances of Sculpture on some of my works. MacBook Pros can run about 15-17, but I've been holding off on the Rev. A because of all the heat issues. Hopefully those get cleared up.
Anyways -- yes, I think we should expect Apple to update along with everybody else on the PC front. Maybe not every small speed bump, but whenever a newly designed chip comes out.
See, it's easy to get lost in the specs war. The Mac Pros came out and I was salivating, even though I have a dual 2.0GHz G5 sitting at home. And then one day, as I was editing some HD footage, it occurred ot me that my G5 here - my now outdated G5 - was editing 1080p high-def footage without so much as a flinch. It was SO fast it was not even necessary at all.
So I really have to ask - does Apple really need to get into that stupid-ass PC specs war? Is it really hurting you guys that Apple has been slow to update? Are you really doing tasks that the current computer lineup cannot do?
Hm, well my Powerbook runs barely 4 instances of Sculpture on some of my works. MacBook Pros can run about 15-17, but I've been holding off on the Rev. A because of all the heat issues. Hopefully those get cleared up.
Anyways -- yes, I think we should expect Apple to update along with everybody else on the PC front. Maybe not every small speed bump, but whenever a newly designed chip comes out.
Fredrick
Apr 25, 04:46 PM
Hear we go again, who ever filed the law suit, get a life. Lifes not all about trying to make money out of others, enjoy the product for what it is. And not from what you can make out of it!, and if your worried about being tracked, then you must be doing something wrong!!!!
aafuss1
Aug 6, 05:23 PM
Mike,
I know you're concerned about name-maybe Apple could license the use to you.
Leopard-Public beta like Vista. No-as it can be easily uploaded to torrent sites-like with the Tiger leaks. Apple should keep the preview ADC members only.
I know you're concerned about name-maybe Apple could license the use to you.
Leopard-Public beta like Vista. No-as it can be easily uploaded to torrent sites-like with the Tiger leaks. Apple should keep the preview ADC members only.
ThunderSkunk
Mar 23, 12:38 AM
can you say "last ditch effort"
Kaching!!!
BOOM!
Goodbye.
Nobody wants to f around with all your mess, bleckburry.
Kaching!!!
BOOM!
Goodbye.
Nobody wants to f around with all your mess, bleckburry.
smokeyboi
Jul 20, 11:14 AM
any talk of a quad core merom or mobile cpu?
LagunaSol
Apr 6, 03:54 PM
You're absolutely right. Better than the junk in the app store. At the end of the day there aren't that many QUALITY apps on ipad either. I know because I have one.
"Junk?" You're hilarious. Show me a single Honeycomb app that compares to GarageBand. Keynote. Pages. OmniFocus. Swords & Sworcery. Djay. The list goes on and on. Enjoy your widgets. It's too bad for your wife you don't know how to find and download good iPad apps for her.
"Junk?" You're hilarious. Show me a single Honeycomb app that compares to GarageBand. Keynote. Pages. OmniFocus. Swords & Sworcery. Djay. The list goes on and on. Enjoy your widgets. It's too bad for your wife you don't know how to find and download good iPad apps for her.
zacman
Apr 19, 02:53 PM
What is the present smartphone marketshare?
For Q1/11 aprox. 15% for Apple.
Q4/10 numbers were:
http://www.canalys.com/pr/images/r2011013.gif
Again: Apple sold 3 million more devices in Q4/10 than they did in Q3/10 (16 million compared to 13 million in total numbers) but they lost 0.7% marketshare in that 3 month (Q3/10: 16.7% marketshare, see first graph, Q4/10: 16.0%, see above).
For Q1/11 aprox. 15% for Apple.
Q4/10 numbers were:
http://www.canalys.com/pr/images/r2011013.gif
Again: Apple sold 3 million more devices in Q4/10 than they did in Q3/10 (16 million compared to 13 million in total numbers) but they lost 0.7% marketshare in that 3 month (Q3/10: 16.7% marketshare, see first graph, Q4/10: 16.0%, see above).
joeboy_45101
Nov 28, 09:25 PM
It doesn't cost the consumer any more, why wouldn't you want the people who actually make the music you are listening to get compensated?
This debate is stale. People want something for nothing.
Wow! Where did you ever learn that from the MYASS School of ********! Hey here's an idea, since most of the music these companies produce is mastered and remastered on Mac workstations then why shouldn't Apple be able to come back and get some extra dough off of that. I mean you wouldn't want these record labels making something for nothing, now would you?
This debate is stale. People want something for nothing.
Wow! Where did you ever learn that from the MYASS School of ********! Hey here's an idea, since most of the music these companies produce is mastered and remastered on Mac workstations then why shouldn't Apple be able to come back and get some extra dough off of that. I mean you wouldn't want these record labels making something for nothing, now would you?
JAT
Apr 6, 03:51 PM
I guess it wouldn't hurt their future sales to announce international release dates. Several people I know have ordered or bought an iPad 2 simply because it is available (even with order backlogs) compared to Honeycomb tablets.
Here in continental Europe, all I saw so far was an announcement for the second quarter, which can slip to whenever...
Those of you who already got it - is it worth the wait?
Every Costco here has had Xooms in abundance since the first shipment. I'd say availability is good, interest...not so much.
Costco probably shouldn't have dropped Apple, wonder if they think about that.
Here in continental Europe, all I saw so far was an announcement for the second quarter, which can slip to whenever...
Those of you who already got it - is it worth the wait?
Every Costco here has had Xooms in abundance since the first shipment. I'd say availability is good, interest...not so much.
Costco probably shouldn't have dropped Apple, wonder if they think about that.
0 comments:
Post a Comment