awesomebase
Mar 31, 07:16 PM
I would add I never understand the comparison of Smartphones running Android to smartphones running IOS.
Neither Google or Apple sell their phone operating systems, and the Android spectrum is made up of 50 handsets from 10 different manufacturers who are in direct competition with each other. They are not one big group working together to take on Apple. It makes absolutely zero sense to make that kind of comparison.
It is just as weird as loping off iPod and iPad IOS users...
If people want to compare smartphones, then compare actual sales of individual smartphones, each which only use one OS. People should not draw meaningless lines in the sand lumping all android based handsets together, because they are not together other than they run android. They might as well compare black phones to white phones.
I imagine if you made a chart of the top selling smartphones in the last 5 years, it would consist of the iPhone 4, the iPhone 3GS, the iPhone 3G and the iPhone.
Why not group smartphones by what kind of graphics chip they have or what type of memory chip they use? The OS is irrelevant. Nobody in the smartphone business is directly making money off any of these oses, it is a stupid way to categorize smart phones.
Of course it happens because if they didn't lump them together it would look absurd with Apple totally dominating the smart phone market with their latest phone every year while 100 android commodity phones all have tiny market shares just to get replaced by the next one.
How does HTC running android OS benefit or relate to a Motorola phone running android? It does not, at all.
From an engineering perspective and from a manufacturer's perspective, you're correct. But from an investment's perspective your argument doesn't work. Investors are concerned about Google's ability to profit from this and they compare "Platforms" to get an idea about where people are trending to. That is why despite BB growing, their stock is actually going to be in the trash in a couple of years if not sooner. Their "OS" is basically worthless... people don't value it as much as Android or iOS and as the phones that run those platforms continue to drop in price and become more capable, BB has no choice but to practically give their phones away to make their numbers (albeit at carrier-subsidized prices, but their prices and margins get severely eroded over time).
Just wanted to point that out... your logic is correct, just not applicable to all scenarios...
Neither Google or Apple sell their phone operating systems, and the Android spectrum is made up of 50 handsets from 10 different manufacturers who are in direct competition with each other. They are not one big group working together to take on Apple. It makes absolutely zero sense to make that kind of comparison.
It is just as weird as loping off iPod and iPad IOS users...
If people want to compare smartphones, then compare actual sales of individual smartphones, each which only use one OS. People should not draw meaningless lines in the sand lumping all android based handsets together, because they are not together other than they run android. They might as well compare black phones to white phones.
I imagine if you made a chart of the top selling smartphones in the last 5 years, it would consist of the iPhone 4, the iPhone 3GS, the iPhone 3G and the iPhone.
Why not group smartphones by what kind of graphics chip they have or what type of memory chip they use? The OS is irrelevant. Nobody in the smartphone business is directly making money off any of these oses, it is a stupid way to categorize smart phones.
Of course it happens because if they didn't lump them together it would look absurd with Apple totally dominating the smart phone market with their latest phone every year while 100 android commodity phones all have tiny market shares just to get replaced by the next one.
How does HTC running android OS benefit or relate to a Motorola phone running android? It does not, at all.
From an engineering perspective and from a manufacturer's perspective, you're correct. But from an investment's perspective your argument doesn't work. Investors are concerned about Google's ability to profit from this and they compare "Platforms" to get an idea about where people are trending to. That is why despite BB growing, their stock is actually going to be in the trash in a couple of years if not sooner. Their "OS" is basically worthless... people don't value it as much as Android or iOS and as the phones that run those platforms continue to drop in price and become more capable, BB has no choice but to practically give their phones away to make their numbers (albeit at carrier-subsidized prices, but their prices and margins get severely eroded over time).
Just wanted to point that out... your logic is correct, just not applicable to all scenarios...
cfanyc
Sep 19, 09:54 AM
I think the no new mpb's today is hope that the special event b4 photokina will be about the mbp's with hopefully some new stuff as opposed to a release tues/wed with just a processor swap...
all this waiting is certainly a build up, if it was just the processor swap, it would blow big time....
all this waiting is certainly a build up, if it was just the processor swap, it would blow big time....
moonzilla
Jul 27, 12:08 PM
i think it's safe to assume that Apple will be making an effort to differentiate the Macbooks and the MBP. As of right now, other than the video card, and backlit keyboard, there doesnt seem like a solid reason to fork over an extra 800-1200 bucks. i expect Apple to use the core2 for this purpose. put merom only in the mbp, and force the power-hungry users to upgrade to the pro model.
Apple Corps
Aug 27, 09:27 AM
good information, logical thought.
do you think apple's $100M payoff to Creative*, and possible need to restate financial information for recent quarters/years because of questionable executive compensation, make the company more reluctant than might otherwise have been the case to intro new chips that are, in the beginning more costly and thus will reduce profits?
*--i know, i know, it's only 1% of apple's cash reserves. But that's not meaningless money: trust me, companies make plenty of strategic decisions that affect their products' features, support quality, whatever, over amounts far less than $100M.
Why are you saying the new chips will be more costly??? All reports indicate that Merom will release at the same cost as Yonah.
do you think apple's $100M payoff to Creative*, and possible need to restate financial information for recent quarters/years because of questionable executive compensation, make the company more reluctant than might otherwise have been the case to intro new chips that are, in the beginning more costly and thus will reduce profits?
*--i know, i know, it's only 1% of apple's cash reserves. But that's not meaningless money: trust me, companies make plenty of strategic decisions that affect their products' features, support quality, whatever, over amounts far less than $100M.
Why are you saying the new chips will be more costly??? All reports indicate that Merom will release at the same cost as Yonah.
mdriftmeyer
Aug 27, 07:45 PM
Yes, people have every right to complain when they receive faulty products, particularly so when they're paying good money, as they do when buying Apple. But whether Apple's QC has suffered significantly as they try to keep costs down due to the market pressures of increasingly feasible like-with-like comparisons with PCs, as well as meeting an increasing consumer demand, is debatable? Though there certainly seems to be a worrying increase in complaints about the new Intel Macs, I wonder how much of that is down to perception as more people use the internet as a channel to vent their complaints? Regarding the new Intel Macs, the jury here is still very much out (& will remain so for at least another 6 months). Not least because...
Recent surveys continue to give Apple an excellent rating for overall quality when compared to other brands. (Only Sony's computers get similar ratings). Talking about "25% crap products" may feel good as a rhetorical release, but it doesn't really help the debate here.
Good point, however, about how Apple's market share could've been so much greater if only SJ had licensed out OS X. A great opportunity missed.
OEM licensing OS X would not be a panacea. I supported NeXTSTEP/Openstep for NeXT and Apple. We had a nightmare dealing with OEMs who pushed us into the trash heap.
When the merger happened they showed no more interest knowing that we could move the OS to Intel since we had it running on Intel.
Motherboard manufacturers cut corners. OEMs cut all sorts of corners on their I/O cards.
Corralling all necessary OEMs to stick to a specific spec would be a nightmare.
Vista is a classic example of diluting your OS. Five years and counting.
Apple is both a hardware and software company.
The price for their latest Mac Pro shows how price competitive it is with the rest of the industry.
Having built several clone boxes none of them from the case design, integrated motherboard design, controller design, heat transfer requirements, etc comes close to the Mac Pro. It doesn't include Hardware RAID out of the box. Big deal.
When the clone industry can produce cases in general that compete for structural integrity, motherboards with as few cables, easily maintanable cases that are easy to keep dust free then Apple might feel concerned about it's claim to having the most complete experience.
OS X has shortcomings in areas for Engineering (CAD/CAM, FEM, etc. All 3rd party concerns), Games (3rd party concerns, OpenGL 2 concerns that Apple will fix), Vertical Solution concerns (assuming Apple wants to attack the business sectors they will have to address this lack of productivity tools for Finance & Accounting within iWorks) and some other deficiencies.
They are covering their bases and growing their base, quarter by quarter.
When ROME is finally built are we all going to whine that you can save $50 here or there with a clone?
I expect no less.
Recent surveys continue to give Apple an excellent rating for overall quality when compared to other brands. (Only Sony's computers get similar ratings). Talking about "25% crap products" may feel good as a rhetorical release, but it doesn't really help the debate here.
Good point, however, about how Apple's market share could've been so much greater if only SJ had licensed out OS X. A great opportunity missed.
OEM licensing OS X would not be a panacea. I supported NeXTSTEP/Openstep for NeXT and Apple. We had a nightmare dealing with OEMs who pushed us into the trash heap.
When the merger happened they showed no more interest knowing that we could move the OS to Intel since we had it running on Intel.
Motherboard manufacturers cut corners. OEMs cut all sorts of corners on their I/O cards.
Corralling all necessary OEMs to stick to a specific spec would be a nightmare.
Vista is a classic example of diluting your OS. Five years and counting.
Apple is both a hardware and software company.
The price for their latest Mac Pro shows how price competitive it is with the rest of the industry.
Having built several clone boxes none of them from the case design, integrated motherboard design, controller design, heat transfer requirements, etc comes close to the Mac Pro. It doesn't include Hardware RAID out of the box. Big deal.
When the clone industry can produce cases in general that compete for structural integrity, motherboards with as few cables, easily maintanable cases that are easy to keep dust free then Apple might feel concerned about it's claim to having the most complete experience.
OS X has shortcomings in areas for Engineering (CAD/CAM, FEM, etc. All 3rd party concerns), Games (3rd party concerns, OpenGL 2 concerns that Apple will fix), Vertical Solution concerns (assuming Apple wants to attack the business sectors they will have to address this lack of productivity tools for Finance & Accounting within iWorks) and some other deficiencies.
They are covering their bases and growing their base, quarter by quarter.
When ROME is finally built are we all going to whine that you can save $50 here or there with a clone?
I expect no less.
jeanlain
Apr 5, 05:16 PM
I'm not trolling, this is an honest question. But isn't a Final Cut pretty much worthless for commercial use without a way to put the results on Blu-Ray?
Final Cut does a bit more than disc authoring.
Final Cut does a bit more than disc authoring.
kdarling
Apr 6, 03:01 PM
But he then said after how well it would work on the phone, they put the tablet project on the shelf and focused on the phone as it was more important. Which means it was a tablet and no just a touch screen device in the beginning.
Sure, it could've been a full tablet. It just didn't have iOS, is my point.
People misremember a lot. You know how it goes: a story always gets better as time goes by :)
For example, in the later tablet version we are told that seeing kinetic scrolling on the demo made him want for Apple to build a touch phone:
“I had this idea about having a glass display, a multitouch display you could type on with your fingers. I asked our folks: could we come up with a multitouch display that we could type on? And six months later, they came back with this prototype display. And I gave it to one of our really brilliant UI guys and he called me back a few weeks later and had intertial scrolling working and I thought, ‘my God, we can build a phone with this!’ So we put the tablet on the shelf… and we went to work on the iPhone.”
Yet, years before in one of the first iPhone articles in we were told that kinetic scrolling came later on:
"At one point, Mr. Jobs got a call from one of the iPhone engineers with an idea: Why not allow iPhone users to navigate through both song collections and contacts stored on the device by simply flicking their fingers up and down across the surface of the touch-screen? The engineer gave Mr. Jobs a demonstration of the technology, and the Apple chief executive signed off on it immediately, according to a person familiar with the process."
I'd love one day for a definitive history to come out, so we can know the full timing, and also credit those unsung engineers who actually invented it all.
Sure, it could've been a full tablet. It just didn't have iOS, is my point.
People misremember a lot. You know how it goes: a story always gets better as time goes by :)
For example, in the later tablet version we are told that seeing kinetic scrolling on the demo made him want for Apple to build a touch phone:
“I had this idea about having a glass display, a multitouch display you could type on with your fingers. I asked our folks: could we come up with a multitouch display that we could type on? And six months later, they came back with this prototype display. And I gave it to one of our really brilliant UI guys and he called me back a few weeks later and had intertial scrolling working and I thought, ‘my God, we can build a phone with this!’ So we put the tablet on the shelf… and we went to work on the iPhone.”
Yet, years before in one of the first iPhone articles in we were told that kinetic scrolling came later on:
"At one point, Mr. Jobs got a call from one of the iPhone engineers with an idea: Why not allow iPhone users to navigate through both song collections and contacts stored on the device by simply flicking their fingers up and down across the surface of the touch-screen? The engineer gave Mr. Jobs a demonstration of the technology, and the Apple chief executive signed off on it immediately, according to a person familiar with the process."
I'd love one day for a definitive history to come out, so we can know the full timing, and also credit those unsung engineers who actually invented it all.
63dot
Aug 17, 08:21 PM
Lastly, OS X will always be superior to Windows based on the fact that it's built on a UNIX foundation. If I'm not mistaken, Windows code has just built on top of existing code year-after-year. :mad: I think the OS X was a fresh build.
windows has been, in the past building on existing code for many years and the last incarnation was windows ME, which followed windows 3.x, 95, 98, and 98SE
windows XP is built from windows 2000 which was built from windows NT which was written in what microsoft calls "NT" code, similar to UNIX but not as good, but more stable than the widely used windows 95/98
and os x is superior, and easier to use, than anything from microsoft
windows has been, in the past building on existing code for many years and the last incarnation was windows ME, which followed windows 3.x, 95, 98, and 98SE
windows XP is built from windows 2000 which was built from windows NT which was written in what microsoft calls "NT" code, similar to UNIX but not as good, but more stable than the widely used windows 95/98
and os x is superior, and easier to use, than anything from microsoft
law guy
Aug 5, 10:20 PM
EVERYONE is missing something that MUST be updated A.S.A.P.!
AirPort Base Stations!
Express and especially the Extreme. The Extreme is YEARS old!!
:eek: :eek:
Good point - CNET just did a round up of "pre-n" series routers http://reviews.cnet.com/4321-3319_7-6544166-1.html - the extreme hasn't entered that area yet - although it was ahead of the curve a bit with the "g" standard.
AirPort Base Stations!
Express and especially the Extreme. The Extreme is YEARS old!!
:eek: :eek:
Good point - CNET just did a round up of "pre-n" series routers http://reviews.cnet.com/4321-3319_7-6544166-1.html - the extreme hasn't entered that area yet - although it was ahead of the curve a bit with the "g" standard.
Amazing Iceman
Mar 22, 10:31 PM
Microsoft Office 2007 (Windows) and 2011 (Mac) are not slow.
They may be slow in your super �ber Mac from which uses the super �ber Core 2 Duo, but it's certainly not in my sister's Core i3 notebook.
Your machine is outdated. I hope you're not using it as a reference to judge Microsoft Office performance.
Are you having PMS (no offense to the ladies) or something like that?
I didn't say it ran slow on my MAC. Even FCP and CS5 run great. Otherwise I would have already purchased a new one. Unlike you, I can afford it. I'm going to buy the new 17" MBP, but because it has issues I decided to wait until these get solved, but that's not your business.
Also, your ignorance and arrogance didn't let you understand my point. Every new version of Office, specially the Windows version, requires a bigger and faster computer to run. And when you compare features, there's no real gain from one version to the next, just nice looking colors and animations, which are a waste of processor speed.
Go learn some manners, and mature at least a little. Idiots like you shouldn't be allowed in these forums.
They may be slow in your super �ber Mac from which uses the super �ber Core 2 Duo, but it's certainly not in my sister's Core i3 notebook.
Your machine is outdated. I hope you're not using it as a reference to judge Microsoft Office performance.
Are you having PMS (no offense to the ladies) or something like that?
I didn't say it ran slow on my MAC. Even FCP and CS5 run great. Otherwise I would have already purchased a new one. Unlike you, I can afford it. I'm going to buy the new 17" MBP, but because it has issues I decided to wait until these get solved, but that's not your business.
Also, your ignorance and arrogance didn't let you understand my point. Every new version of Office, specially the Windows version, requires a bigger and faster computer to run. And when you compare features, there's no real gain from one version to the next, just nice looking colors and animations, which are a waste of processor speed.
Go learn some manners, and mature at least a little. Idiots like you shouldn't be allowed in these forums.
Silentwave
Jul 14, 05:28 PM
All three chips produce the same performance at the same clockspeed. Cache size may make a difference, but the Conroe models starting at 2.4 GHz all have the large 4 MB cache. So a single 2.66 GHz Woodcrest will be substantially slower than a 2.93 GHz Conroe. Not that it matters; the 2.93 GHz Conroe is extremely overpriced and unlikely to be used in any Macintosh.
While I agree that the 2.93 Conroe is unlikely to make its way into the macs, I don't think the difference will be 'substantial.' The Woodcrest has a faster FSB, and most other variables are equal except clock speed. Based on the benchmarks on the various Conroe versions, I think that the 2.66 Woodcrest will offer performance only very slightly slower than Conroe 2.93.
I personally would expect 2.0GHz Conroe, 2.66 GHz Conroe, 2 x 2 GHz Woodcrest and 2 x 2.66 GHz Woodcrest for a wide range from cheap to maximum performance.
Just a nit, but IIRC isn't the codename for conroe based chips running at 2.4 and below with 2MB L2 caches Allendale? (there is a separate 2.4 with 4mb L2)
I'm still not sure whether Apple will go all woodcrest to get better prices on chips and RAM (FB-DIMM is exclusive to woodcrest in apple's potential lineup)but I would expect either 2x2GHz or 2x2.3GHz as a low end quad, and either a 2x2.66 or 2x3.0 for the high end. Perhaps the 3.0GHz will be a BTO option for the 2x2.66, like the 2.16 was a BTO originally on the 2.0 MBP.
"One more thing, you know we complained about not breaking 3GHz with Power-PC, so for our latest quad, we figured you'd all like to finally do that. So, you can order your top level 2.66 Xeon quad as a build to order with two of the 3.0GHz Xeon chips!"
While I agree that the 2.93 Conroe is unlikely to make its way into the macs, I don't think the difference will be 'substantial.' The Woodcrest has a faster FSB, and most other variables are equal except clock speed. Based on the benchmarks on the various Conroe versions, I think that the 2.66 Woodcrest will offer performance only very slightly slower than Conroe 2.93.
I personally would expect 2.0GHz Conroe, 2.66 GHz Conroe, 2 x 2 GHz Woodcrest and 2 x 2.66 GHz Woodcrest for a wide range from cheap to maximum performance.
Just a nit, but IIRC isn't the codename for conroe based chips running at 2.4 and below with 2MB L2 caches Allendale? (there is a separate 2.4 with 4mb L2)
I'm still not sure whether Apple will go all woodcrest to get better prices on chips and RAM (FB-DIMM is exclusive to woodcrest in apple's potential lineup)but I would expect either 2x2GHz or 2x2.3GHz as a low end quad, and either a 2x2.66 or 2x3.0 for the high end. Perhaps the 3.0GHz will be a BTO option for the 2x2.66, like the 2.16 was a BTO originally on the 2.0 MBP.
"One more thing, you know we complained about not breaking 3GHz with Power-PC, so for our latest quad, we figured you'd all like to finally do that. So, you can order your top level 2.66 Xeon quad as a build to order with two of the 3.0GHz Xeon chips!"
zap2
Apr 6, 04:22 PM
I have something better than a MacBook Air. It's called an iPad 2.
Honestly, they aren't very comparable. Yes, the iPad takes the place of many people's general computing, but I couldn't survive well with just my iPad. My Air in the other hand does a great job replacing my 15" MBP.
Honestly, they aren't very comparable. Yes, the iPad takes the place of many people's general computing, but I couldn't survive well with just my iPad. My Air in the other hand does a great job replacing my 15" MBP.
QCassidy352
Jul 20, 03:53 PM
I hate to burst everyone's bubble, but Kentsfield will not be appearing in any of the Pro machines for some time.
Apple will be using them exclusively in the Xserves, at for the most part of 2007. This will finally give Apple another way to distinguish their server line from their pro line.
What? Apple*differentiates the XServes by having them 1U thick and rackmountable. One buys a rackmount server not because it's faster but because it's smaller and fits in a rack.
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.
Apple will be using them exclusively in the Xserves, at for the most part of 2007. This will finally give Apple another way to distinguish their server line from their pro line.
What? Apple*differentiates the XServes by having them 1U thick and rackmountable. One buys a rackmount server not because it's faster but because it's smaller and fits in a rack.
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.
dethmaShine
Apr 25, 01:37 PM
Wait.
1. Android stores the info as well.
2. Unlike Apple, Android sends it back to Google.
And Apple gets sued. :rolleyes:
1. Android stores the info as well.
2. Unlike Apple, Android sends it back to Google.
And Apple gets sued. :rolleyes:
dgree03
Mar 31, 02:39 PM
I've been wanting to say this for a very long time. Google's OS has no advantage over iOS. You could even say it has a disadvantage. Having to create a vanilla code base that needs to function on multiple pieces of hardware is complex, more complexity creates weaker system.
But here's my point. The ONLY ONLY reason why Android market share is anywhere near what it is today is because of the Buy One Get One options at most phone retailers. iOS has NEVER done that and hopefully never will. If you didn't care about the phone or service but needed two "Newer Smart Phones" one for you and one for your wife, why not go with the "Blah Blah" model from Verizon where if I buy one today I get the second for free (two year agreement and activation fees required).
Market share means nothing. This platform is doomed unless Google reins it in and get control over it. If they do, providers will be less willing to work with them, if they don't, by by Android.
My Two Cents.
-LanPhantom
Iphone are sold BOGO and even just free on contract over in other countries.
Android has quite a few advantages over iOS. And as it stands right now, android is still as "open" as it was 1 minutes before this article got posted
Nice try.
But here's my point. The ONLY ONLY reason why Android market share is anywhere near what it is today is because of the Buy One Get One options at most phone retailers. iOS has NEVER done that and hopefully never will. If you didn't care about the phone or service but needed two "Newer Smart Phones" one for you and one for your wife, why not go with the "Blah Blah" model from Verizon where if I buy one today I get the second for free (two year agreement and activation fees required).
Market share means nothing. This platform is doomed unless Google reins it in and get control over it. If they do, providers will be less willing to work with them, if they don't, by by Android.
My Two Cents.
-LanPhantom
Iphone are sold BOGO and even just free on contract over in other countries.
Android has quite a few advantages over iOS. And as it stands right now, android is still as "open" as it was 1 minutes before this article got posted
Nice try.
boncellis
Jul 20, 09:06 AM
I wonder just how Apple would react to news that the next processor update is ahead of schedule. Presumably their plans are carefully laid out, and if a PC competitor can jump on Intel updates faster than they can without having to conform to a similar timeline, then Apple might get burned, if only slightly.
That's one aspect of the transition that I've always wondered about. Apple has often marketed new "products" more than "updates" in the past, but with Intel's speed of development, perhaps Apple will now focus more on updates and minimize redesigning/new releases. I don't think it's bad, just something of a departure from what I've grown accustomed to.
That's one aspect of the transition that I've always wondered about. Apple has often marketed new "products" more than "updates" in the past, but with Intel's speed of development, perhaps Apple will now focus more on updates and minimize redesigning/new releases. I don't think it's bad, just something of a departure from what I've grown accustomed to.
NoSmokingBandit
Dec 10, 10:25 AM
*sexy pics*
Did you take those yourself? I've only played with photo mode a little and i have trouble keeping my car in focus unless i use a huge f-stop. If i shorted the DoF it always ends up focusing on my rear bumper or something stupid.
I probably just need to use it more, but i just get impatient and start another race.
Did you take those yourself? I've only played with photo mode a little and i have trouble keeping my car in focus unless i use a huge f-stop. If i shorted the DoF it always ends up focusing on my rear bumper or something stupid.
I probably just need to use it more, but i just get impatient and start another race.
rdowns
Mar 24, 12:43 PM
The right pro-war machine is all but gone. The policies haven't changed, but the party color of the president has.
Fixed that for you.
Fixed that for you.
addicted44
Mar 26, 01:16 AM
I don't know that #2 matters that much. A vast majority of the people buying the OS couldn't care less about the server tools. In fact of all the Mac users I know personally, I'd be the only one that would care about their inclusion.
Also, we don't know that the price point will be $129.00 yet. The price point is something I am VERY interested in seeing though. Will it be that high? Or will it be as cheap as Snow Leopard? Or somewhere in the middle? I'm personally guessing it'll be the latter. The AppStore is changing the general population's idea of what software should cost (which is, in my opinion, one of the best things about it). So we'll see.
Right on both counts. Still, I think its amazing that we might be getting a server class OS for what will most likely be less than $129.
Also, we don't know that the price point will be $129.00 yet. The price point is something I am VERY interested in seeing though. Will it be that high? Or will it be as cheap as Snow Leopard? Or somewhere in the middle? I'm personally guessing it'll be the latter. The AppStore is changing the general population's idea of what software should cost (which is, in my opinion, one of the best things about it). So we'll see.
Right on both counts. Still, I think its amazing that we might be getting a server class OS for what will most likely be less than $129.
darkplanets
Mar 31, 06:01 PM
"We have no idea if it will even work on phones."
Um, so rather than find out, let's just not release it so we never know. That's an awesome decision. Way to take a chance there Google.
On the same note, I'm not sure if I can run the trail by my house in under 10 minutes, so I'm not even going to try.
I bet they tried, but it didn't work well. They're just feigning ignorance. As they themselves said, they cut corners. I read this as they didn't optimize the software-- it's probably very processor and RAM intensive. Just speculation though.
Um, so rather than find out, let's just not release it so we never know. That's an awesome decision. Way to take a chance there Google.
On the same note, I'm not sure if I can run the trail by my house in under 10 minutes, so I'm not even going to try.
I bet they tried, but it didn't work well. They're just feigning ignorance. As they themselves said, they cut corners. I read this as they didn't optimize the software-- it's probably very processor and RAM intensive. Just speculation though.
Stellarola
Apr 14, 01:54 AM
My fianc� and I have been holding out since our first gen iPhones. This is a true bummer. I feels it's true. :(
Tomaz
Aug 7, 05:34 PM
Time Machine won't mean much when the HD fails. Back that azz up!
Also a very good point, so I need a bigger main HD for my MacBookPro (the new Seagate 160GB becomes interesting) for Time Machine, but i still need to back the hole thing up to an external HD in case of a HD crash (I had 2 in the last 8 months!). So Tine Machine doesn't make Backups obsolete, I didn't even think of that up to now. Hmmm..
Also a very good point, so I need a bigger main HD for my MacBookPro (the new Seagate 160GB becomes interesting) for Time Machine, but i still need to back the hole thing up to an external HD in case of a HD crash (I had 2 in the last 8 months!). So Tine Machine doesn't make Backups obsolete, I didn't even think of that up to now. Hmmm..
MacRumors
Apr 27, 07:52 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/27/apple-officially-addresses-location-data-controversy/)
Apple officially acknowledged (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2011/04/27location_qa.html) the growing controversy over the logging of location data on the iPhone and iPad. The document comes in a Q&A format. In it, Apple addresses some common concerns and explicitly states that they are not tracking the location of your iPhone, has never done so and has no plans to do so.
The go on to explain the reason for the logging of data:
Why is my iPhone logging my location?
The iPhone is not logging your location. Rather, it’s maintaining a database of Wi-Fi hotspots and cell towers around your current location, some of which may be located more than one hundred miles away from your iPhone, to help your iPhone rapidly and accurately calculate its location when requested. Calculating a phone’s location using just GPS satellite data can take up to several minutes. iPhone can reduce this time to just a few seconds by using Wi-Fi hotspot and cell tower data to quickly find GPS satellites, and even triangulate its location using just Wi-Fi hotspot and cell tower data when GPS is not available (such as indoors or in basements). These calculations are performed live on the iPhone using a crowd-sourced database of Wi-Fi hotspot and cell tower data that is generated by tens of millions of iPhones sending the geo-tagged locations of nearby Wi-Fi hotspots and cell towers in an anonymous and encrypted form to Apple.Apple states that all data that is transmitted to Apple is anonymous and encrypted and can not be tied to the identity of the user. They also note that findings that the database continues to grow despite Location services being off as a bug that will soon be addressed.
Apple is planning on releasing a free iOS update in the next few weeks that performs the following:
- reduces the size of the crowd-sourced Wi-Fi hotspot and cell tower database cached on the iPhone,
- ceases backing up this cache, and
- deletes this cache entirely when Location Services is turned off.
Article Link: Apple Officially Addresses Location Data Controversy (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/27/apple-officially-addresses-location-data-controversy/)
Apple officially acknowledged (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2011/04/27location_qa.html) the growing controversy over the logging of location data on the iPhone and iPad. The document comes in a Q&A format. In it, Apple addresses some common concerns and explicitly states that they are not tracking the location of your iPhone, has never done so and has no plans to do so.
The go on to explain the reason for the logging of data:
Why is my iPhone logging my location?
The iPhone is not logging your location. Rather, it’s maintaining a database of Wi-Fi hotspots and cell towers around your current location, some of which may be located more than one hundred miles away from your iPhone, to help your iPhone rapidly and accurately calculate its location when requested. Calculating a phone’s location using just GPS satellite data can take up to several minutes. iPhone can reduce this time to just a few seconds by using Wi-Fi hotspot and cell tower data to quickly find GPS satellites, and even triangulate its location using just Wi-Fi hotspot and cell tower data when GPS is not available (such as indoors or in basements). These calculations are performed live on the iPhone using a crowd-sourced database of Wi-Fi hotspot and cell tower data that is generated by tens of millions of iPhones sending the geo-tagged locations of nearby Wi-Fi hotspots and cell towers in an anonymous and encrypted form to Apple.Apple states that all data that is transmitted to Apple is anonymous and encrypted and can not be tied to the identity of the user. They also note that findings that the database continues to grow despite Location services being off as a bug that will soon be addressed.
Apple is planning on releasing a free iOS update in the next few weeks that performs the following:
- reduces the size of the crowd-sourced Wi-Fi hotspot and cell tower database cached on the iPhone,
- ceases backing up this cache, and
- deletes this cache entirely when Location Services is turned off.
Article Link: Apple Officially Addresses Location Data Controversy (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/27/apple-officially-addresses-location-data-controversy/)
Michael Scrip
Apr 8, 01:13 AM
As long as Wal-Mart still carries the iPad 2... all is right with the world...
Oh, and Toys-R-Us... I think there is one of those around me.
:D
Oh, and Toys-R-Us... I think there is one of those around me.
:D