mandis
Apr 13, 04:55 PM
It will probably cost twice the price of the equivalent LG/Samsung and at first will only offer half the features.:rolleyes:
IJ Reilly
Jul 12, 10:59 PM
... anyway, this can be accomplished in Pages, but it requires a bit of creativity. Start with a custom page size (5.5 x 8.5 presumably). Lay out your booklet on these pages. Then, when printing the pdf, output 2-up. Reordering the pages into the correct order for printing is a bit of trick, but once you know the order, the pages can be dragged where they belong in the thumbnail viewer. This is really a job for a good page layout application, not a word processor of any kind. I sure wouldn't trust it to a Word Wizard.
Also, anyone who'd send a Word document to a printer with the expectation of good results is not anyone who I'd mistake for knowing the first thing about graphic arts or printing.
Also, anyone who'd send a Word document to a printer with the expectation of good results is not anyone who I'd mistake for knowing the first thing about graphic arts or printing.
Waybo
Apr 10, 11:23 AM
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5190/5604434532_bf3647c0ff_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/22077805@N07/5604434532/)
Makes me smile! Thanks, I needed that! :)
Makes me smile! Thanks, I needed that! :)
saxofunk
Apr 22, 04:47 PM
Obviously, Joshua has never seen the internals of the iPhone 4. The camera has been progressively getting bigger since the 3G. The iPhone 4's camera is relatively huge and boxy. It couldn't possibly fit inside this design, which is why the iPod Touch has a much lower quality one. Unless the iPhone 5's camera is expected to be only for FaceTime (like iPod Touch and iPad 2) there is no way. I believe this is a major reason the iPhone 4 got a boxier design, to squeeze in as much as possible (read: battery) and keep the rear camera in the corner (since it couldn't fit behind the receiver speaker and/or front camera in the middle).
Plus the track record is poor. Joshua and Arn are just looking for hits.
Plus the track record is poor. Joshua and Arn are just looking for hits.
satkin2
Apr 15, 03:40 AM
Apps universal between iOS and OSX would make sense, an iWorks suite that you can run on either your Mac and finish on your iOS device, that would be really nice.
I wouldn't be suprised if this was just a coding error, but sometime in the future I can imagine that the ability to run the same apps on both systems will be possible.
I wouldn't be suprised if this was just a coding error, but sometime in the future I can imagine that the ability to run the same apps on both systems will be possible.
John.B
Apr 18, 09:49 PM
Does Xcode only work on MAC's?
Correct. Xcode is the Mac OSX development platorm, so naturally it only runs on Macs.
Correct. Xcode is the Mac OSX development platorm, so naturally it only runs on Macs.
jmcrutch
Apr 12, 11:29 AM
Maybe this is already being done (if so, I'm not aware), but it would be very nice if PREDICTIONS for iPhone and iPad were tracked. I'd love to see a chart that shows all the predictions, including the dates they were made, what the prediction was, in terms of speculated release dates, and finally, the accuracy of the prediction.
We get ambiguous statements in the MacRumors reports, along the lines of "this analyst/reporter has demonstrated viable sources in the past;" however I don't think there's any hard reporting on how accurate past predictions have been. All we have to do is just think about the iPad2 predictions that were being made as late as January to comprehend how wrong they are ... and that was on the practical eve of release.
I vote for Page 2 as well. Or page 3.
We get ambiguous statements in the MacRumors reports, along the lines of "this analyst/reporter has demonstrated viable sources in the past;" however I don't think there's any hard reporting on how accurate past predictions have been. All we have to do is just think about the iPad2 predictions that were being made as late as January to comprehend how wrong they are ... and that was on the practical eve of release.
I vote for Page 2 as well. Or page 3.
Shadow
Oct 24, 08:26 AM
Hmmm...I've never seen a power adapter on a plane, and I flew a few days ago (on a cheapo airline, but still...). Core 2 Duo isnt that much of an upgrade, its "only" 1.4X, which to some people would make a lot of difference but to me it doesnt. Whats that, like a second faster on most tasks? Not worth the wait. Also, whats the word on CPU buzz?
Tastannin
Apr 11, 05:00 PM
Why no Thunderbolt cards for MacPro users?
Your answer is found in MR's story on TB (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/02/25/notes-of-interest-on-thunderbolt-and-macbook-pro/) when it first came out on the MBP's:
- CNet's live coverage reveals that there are no plans to offer Thunderbolt PCIe cards. In fact, Intel says that you will need a new computer/motherboard to get Thunderbolt. That means Mac Pro owners won't be able to add it on to their systems.
10:25 a.m. (Dong Ngo) : There won't be TB PCIe cards it seems. You'll need a new computer.
10:34 a.m. (Dong Ngo) : There won't be add-in TB adapters, you'll need a new computer/motherboard that supports TB.
Since it's PCIe related, my guess is that its integration goes deeper than just a "PCIe socket" on the logic board. Just slapping a TB PCIe card in a MacPro won't do it, apparently. Bummer, yeah.
I'm glad I sold my 2008 Mac Pro and picked up one of those new MBP's. I love being able to take my Mac(Book) Pro anywhere with me. Couldn't have done that very easily/conveniently with the Mac Pro. Now hurry up TB dock/RAID. :)
Your answer is found in MR's story on TB (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/02/25/notes-of-interest-on-thunderbolt-and-macbook-pro/) when it first came out on the MBP's:
- CNet's live coverage reveals that there are no plans to offer Thunderbolt PCIe cards. In fact, Intel says that you will need a new computer/motherboard to get Thunderbolt. That means Mac Pro owners won't be able to add it on to their systems.
10:25 a.m. (Dong Ngo) : There won't be TB PCIe cards it seems. You'll need a new computer.
10:34 a.m. (Dong Ngo) : There won't be add-in TB adapters, you'll need a new computer/motherboard that supports TB.
Since it's PCIe related, my guess is that its integration goes deeper than just a "PCIe socket" on the logic board. Just slapping a TB PCIe card in a MacPro won't do it, apparently. Bummer, yeah.
I'm glad I sold my 2008 Mac Pro and picked up one of those new MBP's. I love being able to take my Mac(Book) Pro anywhere with me. Couldn't have done that very easily/conveniently with the Mac Pro. Now hurry up TB dock/RAID. :)
*LTD*
Apr 24, 03:40 PM
There is a lot of Apple Dick riding going on. Their is nothing wrong with that. But at some point you have to wake up and look at the rest of the world. World wide in smartphone sells Iphone leads by a large margin. World wide Smartphone OSs, iPhone is generally in third or fourth place (Depends on who made it, Some put RIM in front of iOS). But the majority of them place Android or Symbian as the top selling OS.
If many of your theories that android would disappear if the iPhone was on the same carrier holds no weight. AT&T is still selling millions of Android based phones next to the iPhone (that is was even when AT&T had a piss poor line up android phones.) Right now yes iPhone is selling more then android OS on verizon. But once the honey moon phase is over android based phones will slip back ahead in sells.
And please for the love of all thats good stop going by your personal observations. Watch me do it. In my men of honor meetings on campus I see no iOS devices and half the room has Androids. In my history class there is an equal proportion of Android OS to iOS phones. its based on where and when you look however it does not represent the entire world.
But this does my school did a survey online and we found as March 20 the Ratios look like this- Blackberry 17%, iOS 40, Android 35%, other ties in the rest. Highest selling phone: iPhone 4, iPhone 3gs, Lg Optimus 1 series of phones.
Thanks for the anecdote.
The iPhone sets the bar. Google has to flood the market with a lot of junk to achieve higher share. That's hardly impressive. Google is the MS of mobile. Hardly a compliment. License out your beta OS to anyone that can slam together a box, give it away, and away you go.
The iPhone is still the #1 selling handset. Where are the iPhone killers? There aren't any. Because the competition doesn't know how to make one. Because Apple approaches tech from a totally different place.
The iOS platform still dominates, and given the iPad's success, it'll be that way for the foreseeable future.
Android enjoys highest smartphone market share. Yet the OS is pretty brutal and their ecosystem is a mess. So why do they have greater share? Not because they make a superior product, but because the only alternative to an iPhone was an Android-based device, and Eric T. Mole got to work licensing it out to everyone with no regard for design or User Experience. If you flood the market with what, 70+ (probably a lot more) devices and let everyone and their dog make the devices you'll eventually enjoy force of numbers.
Android is given away free to anyone to manufacture, to make as many POS devices as they wish, to sell for peanuts, in massive volume.
That's all it is. Market flooding at every price point and you get some sort of touchscreen and some sort of app store. And given Google's Microsoftian horizontal business model, that's all it'll ever be.
For instance, THIS is the kind of total junk that Google puts their name to:
http://www.gsmarena.com/zte_racer-reviews-3423.php
And guess what: Dell went ahead and copied it. The DELL XCD28. Same junk. But Android market share just went up!
Here's another amazing Android device:
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/reviews/2010/11/worst-gadget-ever-ars-reviews-a-99-android-tablet.ars
Anything to be proud of? But hey, they're dirt cheap. And uh . . . "open" or whatever.
If Google actually *cared* about what they put the Android name to, if they actually gave a damn about the USER, would they allow this? Ask yourself that. That's the difference. There are some things Apple *will not* allow to exist - namely: garbage.
Google does not care - I'll repeat that - DOES NOT CARE, about what happens to their OS, on what devices it's used, what the result is when someone like ZTE or Dell gets their hands on it. It's a great recipe for pushing huge amounts of volume. It's also a great recipe for manufacturing cheap, poorly-made phones in China. The upshot of all this is you get massively inflated market share, a good chunk owing to phones that should have never seen the light of day. Yes, you have the choice to buy junk. You have the choice to just buy a cheapie. Nothing inherently wrong with this. It's your call, right? HOWEVER, this also contributes to Android market share. That's the catch. The question is not just: how big is your market share? But also: what constitutes your market share?
What constitutes Apple's market share? There's no chance for any confusion here. The iPhone. Same attention to detail in hardware and OS, same high-quality User Experience device to device. All the things that make it the #1 selling handset. There is no chance of junk. In fact, if you're Apple, you owe it to yourself to get as close to perfection as you can every time, because you only sell ONE phone, and not on every carrier, and your licensing is closed. Every last % of Apple's share is an iPhone. There is no chance for crap or inflated share from the sale of cheap commodity-phones.
Apple's share constitutes the #1-selling handset. Exclusively. Android share constitutes: the good, the bad, and the downright ugly.
How does Android market share look now? I'd wager it looks a bit different than before you looked at what's behind the numbers, that is, the kind of infrastructure that supports those high numbers.
Yes, highest market share for Android. Until you go hunting for the REASON.
If many of your theories that android would disappear if the iPhone was on the same carrier holds no weight. AT&T is still selling millions of Android based phones next to the iPhone (that is was even when AT&T had a piss poor line up android phones.) Right now yes iPhone is selling more then android OS on verizon. But once the honey moon phase is over android based phones will slip back ahead in sells.
And please for the love of all thats good stop going by your personal observations. Watch me do it. In my men of honor meetings on campus I see no iOS devices and half the room has Androids. In my history class there is an equal proportion of Android OS to iOS phones. its based on where and when you look however it does not represent the entire world.
But this does my school did a survey online and we found as March 20 the Ratios look like this- Blackberry 17%, iOS 40, Android 35%, other ties in the rest. Highest selling phone: iPhone 4, iPhone 3gs, Lg Optimus 1 series of phones.
Thanks for the anecdote.
The iPhone sets the bar. Google has to flood the market with a lot of junk to achieve higher share. That's hardly impressive. Google is the MS of mobile. Hardly a compliment. License out your beta OS to anyone that can slam together a box, give it away, and away you go.
The iPhone is still the #1 selling handset. Where are the iPhone killers? There aren't any. Because the competition doesn't know how to make one. Because Apple approaches tech from a totally different place.
The iOS platform still dominates, and given the iPad's success, it'll be that way for the foreseeable future.
Android enjoys highest smartphone market share. Yet the OS is pretty brutal and their ecosystem is a mess. So why do they have greater share? Not because they make a superior product, but because the only alternative to an iPhone was an Android-based device, and Eric T. Mole got to work licensing it out to everyone with no regard for design or User Experience. If you flood the market with what, 70+ (probably a lot more) devices and let everyone and their dog make the devices you'll eventually enjoy force of numbers.
Android is given away free to anyone to manufacture, to make as many POS devices as they wish, to sell for peanuts, in massive volume.
That's all it is. Market flooding at every price point and you get some sort of touchscreen and some sort of app store. And given Google's Microsoftian horizontal business model, that's all it'll ever be.
For instance, THIS is the kind of total junk that Google puts their name to:
http://www.gsmarena.com/zte_racer-reviews-3423.php
And guess what: Dell went ahead and copied it. The DELL XCD28. Same junk. But Android market share just went up!
Here's another amazing Android device:
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/reviews/2010/11/worst-gadget-ever-ars-reviews-a-99-android-tablet.ars
Anything to be proud of? But hey, they're dirt cheap. And uh . . . "open" or whatever.
If Google actually *cared* about what they put the Android name to, if they actually gave a damn about the USER, would they allow this? Ask yourself that. That's the difference. There are some things Apple *will not* allow to exist - namely: garbage.
Google does not care - I'll repeat that - DOES NOT CARE, about what happens to their OS, on what devices it's used, what the result is when someone like ZTE or Dell gets their hands on it. It's a great recipe for pushing huge amounts of volume. It's also a great recipe for manufacturing cheap, poorly-made phones in China. The upshot of all this is you get massively inflated market share, a good chunk owing to phones that should have never seen the light of day. Yes, you have the choice to buy junk. You have the choice to just buy a cheapie. Nothing inherently wrong with this. It's your call, right? HOWEVER, this also contributes to Android market share. That's the catch. The question is not just: how big is your market share? But also: what constitutes your market share?
What constitutes Apple's market share? There's no chance for any confusion here. The iPhone. Same attention to detail in hardware and OS, same high-quality User Experience device to device. All the things that make it the #1 selling handset. There is no chance of junk. In fact, if you're Apple, you owe it to yourself to get as close to perfection as you can every time, because you only sell ONE phone, and not on every carrier, and your licensing is closed. Every last % of Apple's share is an iPhone. There is no chance for crap or inflated share from the sale of cheap commodity-phones.
Apple's share constitutes the #1-selling handset. Exclusively. Android share constitutes: the good, the bad, and the downright ugly.
How does Android market share look now? I'd wager it looks a bit different than before you looked at what's behind the numbers, that is, the kind of infrastructure that supports those high numbers.
Yes, highest market share for Android. Until you go hunting for the REASON.
Plymouthbreezer
May 2, 12:15 AM
Anyone outside the US — especially the east coast... Boston, NYC, Washington — will feel different than we do. 9/11 hit us hard. I'm not saying other folks weren't (and aren't) affected, but for me, it's not political, it's not about any election or foreign policy: it's what happen to us. United 175 and American 11 flew over my city, my head, and those on board would be dead just minutes later. We lived it first hand, we saw the destruction and cried and prayed and live with reminders every day. We can't just "move on" or "forget." I was 11, but I remember and relive it as vividly as yesterday.
There's a sense of satisfaction that could only come with this news: a sense of achievement and resilience, of resolve and determination. It's not the end of the war, it's not the end of terrorism, and we all know that. It is however, the end of a trying decade that defined many aspects of many peoples lives.
There's a sense of satisfaction that could only come with this news: a sense of achievement and resilience, of resolve and determination. It's not the end of the war, it's not the end of terrorism, and we all know that. It is however, the end of a trying decade that defined many aspects of many peoples lives.
c0ry138
May 4, 09:55 AM
I wonder why they've moved it to a later date?
I would have to say its because apple was in production fixing the Iphone 4 for 8 months just to get the white one in stores and i would have to say that put them behind on production of a new phone.
I would have to say its because apple was in production fixing the Iphone 4 for 8 months just to get the white one in stores and i would have to say that put them behind on production of a new phone.
celebrian23
Jul 25, 11:23 PM
I just want to know the price
I"m sure these can be built but can the average teen afford one?
Consider the current ipod is $400. This is looking like it could be quite expensive. I just don't see it selling for less than half a grand
I"m sure these can be built but can the average teen afford one?
Consider the current ipod is $400. This is looking like it could be quite expensive. I just don't see it selling for less than half a grand
*LTD*
Apr 21, 11:17 PM
The ITC staff just ruled against them, they lost the famous case against MS, they ended up paying Apple Corps, etc.
What have they actually WON?
Record-breaking quarters and the position as the trend-setter in consumer tech.
These legal skirmishes haven't and won't result in any major untoward changes to Apple products. We all know this already.
What have they actually WON?
Record-breaking quarters and the position as the trend-setter in consumer tech.
These legal skirmishes haven't and won't result in any major untoward changes to Apple products. We all know this already.
NickkyJ
Dec 15, 01:14 AM
installous sounds like a good idea for all you hacks that dont have the 2.99 lol jk jk
i love this app bye bye safari!!!!!!
i love this app bye bye safari!!!!!!
cr2sh
Jul 25, 08:45 AM
In response to the ebay comment, why are they seemingly so dumb? ... Don't people do ANY research?
Please try to keep posts on topic. :o :confused:
I bought a kensington wireless mouse/keyboard combo yesterday for my PC. There's no chance of me returning it for this thing... I've got the wired MM and its flakey enough as it is.
Please try to keep posts on topic. :o :confused:
I bought a kensington wireless mouse/keyboard combo yesterday for my PC. There's no chance of me returning it for this thing... I've got the wired MM and its flakey enough as it is.
Keleko
Apr 4, 02:48 PM
It is little known that the Greeks made it all the way over to Kentucky. But, here is the proof from Hopkinsville, KY.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5221/5587074293_0debd07671_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/22077805@N07/5587074293/)
Let's pretend I posted this version yesterday instead... :)
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5106/5589940554_084d12e3d0_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/22077805@N07/5589940554/in/photostream/)
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5221/5587074293_0debd07671_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/22077805@N07/5587074293/)
Let's pretend I posted this version yesterday instead... :)
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5106/5589940554_084d12e3d0_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/22077805@N07/5589940554/in/photostream/)
sgosine
Jun 19, 12:23 AM
Wow! why is this still being discussed?
rxse7en
Jul 28, 09:43 AM
My mistake, sorry. I got mixed-up between your replies to kevin.rivers, who replied to bigmc6000...
Maybe he meant "the only high-def console" on the market right now with the PS3 still a few months away?
No sweat. :D
Personally, I'd hope that the new gaming consoles--read PS3--would offer some DIVX playback too. I have a Samsung HT-q70 that upscales to 1080i over HDMI and it has a USB port on the front that allows you to plug an external drive into it and it plays VCD, DVD, DIVX, MPEG 2 & 4. That would be a nice simple feature that can be added to these consoles that would make them more useful as a media center.
B
Maybe he meant "the only high-def console" on the market right now with the PS3 still a few months away?
No sweat. :D
Personally, I'd hope that the new gaming consoles--read PS3--would offer some DIVX playback too. I have a Samsung HT-q70 that upscales to 1080i over HDMI and it has a USB port on the front that allows you to plug an external drive into it and it plays VCD, DVD, DIVX, MPEG 2 & 4. That would be a nice simple feature that can be added to these consoles that would make them more useful as a media center.
B
dethmaShine
Apr 16, 06:58 AM
First, OS X is very much like the last versions of NeXTSTEP was, aside from Quartz/Appkit frameworks and GUI layer. Foundation is basically what was shipping in the 90s, the kernel/BSD userland, etc...
Apple has done a lot of work on it, and I've said so in my posts several times. I'm not diminishing their work in anyway.
Yeah, OS X is pretty much the same. There's nothing that apple has put in it. Most of the frameworks are derived from NeXTSTEP. Happy now?
Again, I'm simply stating that pissing over Google because they "acquired" and used "open source" is quick disingenuous in the face of Apple having done the same for both their flagship OSes.
No one is pissing over google's work. It was a response to one of your s*****[censored] comments, here:
By that same vein, what has Apple ever developed that's anything close to a OS ? And no, Mac OS X, a bunch of components bought/taken from the open source community doesn't count... it's just a Unix distribution with a GUI layer on top.
You replied to a person who was talking about ChromeOS being just a giant browser which is absolutely true.
You sound like one of those people on engadget who are always claiming that Apple has just been copying/modifying stuff and selling it as their own.
How do you know ? You saw Android in 2005 ? You can seriously compare what Andy's company made back then to what is actually shipping now ? The evolution from Android 1.0 to 2.3/3.0 is quite astounding by itself, who knows what went on between 2005 and version 1.0 that shipped in late 2009.
That's not what I meant. I meant that Google buys a lot of companies and makes a lot of acquisitions and sell their product as Google's. There's nothing bad in that. But there's nothing false about it as well. Developing/Not developing Android was never my point.
Why even attempt to diminish the work ? Apple does the same acquisition, they use open source projects to quicken development. The histories are similar, the goals are similar. Why hate Google over it, and why do you think it doesn't also reflect on Apple when you do ?
OK, which company doesn't? Apple does it too. But they are not buying other people's products and just selling them outright. You know you're dreaming when you claim that Mac OS X has very less to do with apple and much to do with every other thing they 'copied'.
I will leave the rest of your post out and just report it to the mods instead. I suggest editing your post to remove your clear lack of respect. If you want to discuss the merits of each at the fine detail, I don't think this is the thread for it. Again, let's drop the Google hate and talk OS X instead.
[/quote]
Are you the one who's talking about lack of respect? Just look at your post history. You call people fools; you tell them they don't know anything.
Nevermind, please report. Thanks.
Very well said, just like you insert pro-google comments in every other thread.
Apple has done a lot of work on it, and I've said so in my posts several times. I'm not diminishing their work in anyway.
Yeah, OS X is pretty much the same. There's nothing that apple has put in it. Most of the frameworks are derived from NeXTSTEP. Happy now?
Again, I'm simply stating that pissing over Google because they "acquired" and used "open source" is quick disingenuous in the face of Apple having done the same for both their flagship OSes.
No one is pissing over google's work. It was a response to one of your s*****[censored] comments, here:
By that same vein, what has Apple ever developed that's anything close to a OS ? And no, Mac OS X, a bunch of components bought/taken from the open source community doesn't count... it's just a Unix distribution with a GUI layer on top.
You replied to a person who was talking about ChromeOS being just a giant browser which is absolutely true.
You sound like one of those people on engadget who are always claiming that Apple has just been copying/modifying stuff and selling it as their own.
How do you know ? You saw Android in 2005 ? You can seriously compare what Andy's company made back then to what is actually shipping now ? The evolution from Android 1.0 to 2.3/3.0 is quite astounding by itself, who knows what went on between 2005 and version 1.0 that shipped in late 2009.
That's not what I meant. I meant that Google buys a lot of companies and makes a lot of acquisitions and sell their product as Google's. There's nothing bad in that. But there's nothing false about it as well. Developing/Not developing Android was never my point.
Why even attempt to diminish the work ? Apple does the same acquisition, they use open source projects to quicken development. The histories are similar, the goals are similar. Why hate Google over it, and why do you think it doesn't also reflect on Apple when you do ?
OK, which company doesn't? Apple does it too. But they are not buying other people's products and just selling them outright. You know you're dreaming when you claim that Mac OS X has very less to do with apple and much to do with every other thing they 'copied'.
I will leave the rest of your post out and just report it to the mods instead. I suggest editing your post to remove your clear lack of respect. If you want to discuss the merits of each at the fine detail, I don't think this is the thread for it. Again, let's drop the Google hate and talk OS X instead.
[/quote]
Are you the one who's talking about lack of respect? Just look at your post history. You call people fools; you tell them they don't know anything.
Nevermind, please report. Thanks.
Very well said, just like you insert pro-google comments in every other thread.
bedifferent
Apr 15, 10:29 PM
They used to publish changelogs before they switch to the new ADC.
I miss those days. This iOS style (GUI and OS X beta development) isn't wow'ing me. Not liking the grey icons, launchpad is a useless addition to application organization that works better with iOS multi-touch devices, no TRIM for third party Sandforce SSD's yet, OpenGL is lagging, no R.I., and no more change log's for developers. The iOS $99 membership (a huge drop from the $499+) is simply a way for Apple to grab money from non-developers and possibly receive feedback that is more consumer than developer driven.
I miss those days. This iOS style (GUI and OS X beta development) isn't wow'ing me. Not liking the grey icons, launchpad is a useless addition to application organization that works better with iOS multi-touch devices, no TRIM for third party Sandforce SSD's yet, OpenGL is lagging, no R.I., and no more change log's for developers. The iOS $99 membership (a huge drop from the $499+) is simply a way for Apple to grab money from non-developers and possibly receive feedback that is more consumer than developer driven.
Michaelgtrusa
Mar 31, 10:23 AM
I really like what I see!
rhett7660
Apr 30, 07:22 PM
Great! Commoditize an art form and degrade it even further.
It's bad enough we've already hacked music apart by turning it digital, now we're treating it like soda pop. Everything is a bargain bin price war.
With the exception of very few bands and solo artist, this has been the case anyway. I think we would be kidding ourselves if we don't think the music industry has done this already. Pop seems to rule the airwaves and the tv so why should this be any different. Heck, you can't tell me hearing a song that came out less then a year ago being played on in a car commercial. Come on, it has already been commercialized.
It's bad enough we've already hacked music apart by turning it digital, now we're treating it like soda pop. Everything is a bargain bin price war.
With the exception of very few bands and solo artist, this has been the case anyway. I think we would be kidding ourselves if we don't think the music industry has done this already. Pop seems to rule the airwaves and the tv so why should this be any different. Heck, you can't tell me hearing a song that came out less then a year ago being played on in a car commercial. Come on, it has already been commercialized.
balamw
Oct 23, 10:46 AM
No one will know that until they try installing Windows on a VM.
The implication from Paul Thurrott's comments via daveschroeder above is that it isn't a tecnological limitation, but I agree with you that it shouldn't be hard to detect VM or not. I would presume the first place they'd go is for the DRM and thus eliminate lots of what people would like to do by running Windows in a VM on a Mac.
B
The implication from Paul Thurrott's comments via daveschroeder above is that it isn't a tecnological limitation, but I agree with you that it shouldn't be hard to detect VM or not. I would presume the first place they'd go is for the DRM and thus eliminate lots of what people would like to do by running Windows in a VM on a Mac.
B