Unspeaked
Aug 11, 01:40 PM
I guess your point is that Apple agrees with YOU, right?
No, my point is that I think Apple will continue to do what it's always done, and that those arguing that they'll suddenly treat product announcements differently just because their chips are now supplied by Intel are only speculating.
I admit I'm speculating as well, but my speculation is based on Apple's known prior history, while other's is based on their wet dreams of Core 2 Duo MacBooks, which they've been wanting since before the *original* MacBook was even announced, and which they'll probably complain about once they're actually released anyway, and hold off for the next gen chips.
::sigh::
No, my point is that I think Apple will continue to do what it's always done, and that those arguing that they'll suddenly treat product announcements differently just because their chips are now supplied by Intel are only speculating.
I admit I'm speculating as well, but my speculation is based on Apple's known prior history, while other's is based on their wet dreams of Core 2 Duo MacBooks, which they've been wanting since before the *original* MacBook was even announced, and which they'll probably complain about once they're actually released anyway, and hold off for the next gen chips.
::sigh::
amanset
Aug 2, 12:09 PM
Why not? I have one in excellent condition that I don't need anymore seeing I moved over to the MacTel iMac. I'm across the pond so can I sell it to you?
Due to hazardous substances contained within.
http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1830
Due to hazardous substances contained within.
http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1830
xPismo
Jul 29, 10:40 PM
one problem, that will never happen...
Nor, methinks this iPhone shall ever happen. What would Apple gain in becoming a cell phone provider? Its a nasty market with no concensus between camps.
Sorry, its vaporware.
Nor, methinks this iPhone shall ever happen. What would Apple gain in becoming a cell phone provider? Its a nasty market with no concensus between camps.
Sorry, its vaporware.
likemyorbs
Apr 18, 02:54 PM
Wow apple is way out of line here, this is not right. That's like if the first company to create a netbook sued every other company who made a netbook afterward.
Multimedia
Aug 3, 12:49 AM
Jesus christ, did you even watch the video? They were not reporters they were Intel staffers. He even says that the CoreDuo lasted 3 hours, not your claimed 2. This isn't scientific AT ALL and I would much rather believe Intel engineers who presented the info at IDF than some random marketing drivel with absolutely no information provided on the hardware/software. :rolleyes:
Now stop claiming that dropping a Merom in a MB/MBP is going to result in two times the battery life. That is not true. And if you think it is I will make a bet with you right now.
I'm not anti Core2Duo, I'm anti disinformation.1.67 x 3 = 5
1.67 rounded UP = 2
Almost TWICE and I never wrote "two times".
Now stop claiming that dropping a Merom in a MB/MBP is going to result in two times the battery life. That is not true. And if you think it is I will make a bet with you right now.
I'm not anti Core2Duo, I'm anti disinformation.1.67 x 3 = 5
1.67 rounded UP = 2
Almost TWICE and I never wrote "two times".
islanders
Jul 23, 11:50 PM
Also, I have been inconsistent in my post. On page 5 or so, I was crying for a roll out, then did a 180 after a little research.
Some call it speculation. It's also more fun if you don't research.
I�m going to cut my losses and leave it up to the pros.
I enjoyed the ride. Thanks for the responses!
Some call it speculation. It's also more fun if you don't research.
I�m going to cut my losses and leave it up to the pros.
I enjoyed the ride. Thanks for the responses!
scottwaugh
Apr 20, 08:22 AM
to really stay ahead of the market Apple will need to:
add a 4" screen
keep the same form factor
add the dual core A5 processor
update the GPU to something similar (but most likely not as powerful) as in the iPad 2
....
The GPU is integrated into the A5 processor, anything the A5 goes into will get the iPad 2 GPU as well - means serious graphics power into the iPhone 5 and Apple TV as they are updated with the A5.
add a 4" screen
keep the same form factor
add the dual core A5 processor
update the GPU to something similar (but most likely not as powerful) as in the iPad 2
....
The GPU is integrated into the A5 processor, anything the A5 goes into will get the iPad 2 GPU as well - means serious graphics power into the iPhone 5 and Apple TV as they are updated with the A5.
DakotaGuy
Aug 4, 10:20 AM
Hmmm...is Apple going to be changing to new chips every six months now? Nice to see technology moving along at a rapid pace, but for those people who always need the latest and greatest...This is gonna get REAL expensive!:p
How many people plan to dump their Core Duo Macs for Core 2 Duo Macs? I like my iMac and it really is fast, heck my iMac G5 was plenty fast, but I hate being behind everyone when new things come out and it gets too expensive to keep up with Apple...well not in the PowerPC days...but now it does!
How many people plan to dump their Core Duo Macs for Core 2 Duo Macs? I like my iMac and it really is fast, heck my iMac G5 was plenty fast, but I hate being behind everyone when new things come out and it gets too expensive to keep up with Apple...well not in the PowerPC days...but now it does!
Wolfpup
Jan 12, 10:56 AM
It's not ignorant at all.
Yes, a handful do, and they can be easily avoided with a reasonable dose of common sense.
That's true, but it's true of Windows too. If you're sensible, you probably won't get infected. But given these things have no real overhead, and there is a real risk, it's just sensible to use it.
There is no problem running on an admin account, if you're even moderately aware of what you're doing.
It still prompts if something's trying to use your admin/root privileges, right?
The market share myth is ridiculous and has no basis in fact.
Of course it does. A quick Google finds multiple Mac hackers saying that actually OS X is easier to hack. Market value of doing so or effort required to hit a much smaller target are the reasons cited for generally not bothering.
You already know Apple's software has exploits too, if you've ever run any Apple software and not disabled updates.
This is just the reality of the modern world-our computers are connected. Our software is insanely complex. Put the two together, and you end up with all sorts of issues being discovered.
Yes, a handful do, and they can be easily avoided with a reasonable dose of common sense.
That's true, but it's true of Windows too. If you're sensible, you probably won't get infected. But given these things have no real overhead, and there is a real risk, it's just sensible to use it.
There is no problem running on an admin account, if you're even moderately aware of what you're doing.
It still prompts if something's trying to use your admin/root privileges, right?
The market share myth is ridiculous and has no basis in fact.
Of course it does. A quick Google finds multiple Mac hackers saying that actually OS X is easier to hack. Market value of doing so or effort required to hit a much smaller target are the reasons cited for generally not bothering.
You already know Apple's software has exploits too, if you've ever run any Apple software and not disabled updates.
This is just the reality of the modern world-our computers are connected. Our software is insanely complex. Put the two together, and you end up with all sorts of issues being discovered.
bhtooefr
Apr 30, 10:56 PM
OK, so a few things about this that I'm seeing...
3200x2000 background: A bit odd choice of resolution, but I think they're making a 16:10 resolution that they'll crop to 16:9 for the machine with an actually 3200px wide display.
But, that does indicate a few things.
3200x1800 makes sense if you're pixel quadrupling a 1600x900 display, which is what a 15.6" 16:9 MBP at current pixel densities would be. But, it DOESN'T make sense for pixel quadrupling the 17" MBP, or any of the desktop displays.
If the 15.6" or 15.4" MBP gets this, and the 17" doesn't... that means that (and this is pure conjecture here) the 17" isn't long for the world. How well do they sell, anyway?
As for display technology supporting a pixel-quadrupled iMac, we've had the technology for a pixel-quadrupled 21.5" iMac since 2001. The IBM T221, a 3840x2400 22.2" monitor, is the same density as that theoretical display. It was $18,000 when it came out, and by the time IBM pulled the plug on IDTech, a Viewsonic-branded version of the T221, the VP2290b, was in the $4000 ballpark in 2005. So, had the T221 followed a curve influenced more by technology improvements than by the market getting saturated with unusable monitors, we'd be seeing these panels in the $2000 range nowadays, as a standalone monitor, I think.
Now, to look at all the machines that Apple has. Keep in mind that I think that only pro hardware will get this, and Apple likes to stick to around 100-110 PPI for desktops, and 110-130 PPI for laptops.
I'll go ahead and speculate on theoretical 16:9 variants of existing models, too.
MacBook Air 11.6": Currently 1366x768, 135 ppi, retina at 25.4" - would be 2732x1536, 270 ppi, retina at 12.7"
MacBook Air 13.3": Currently 1440x900, 128 ppi, retina at 26.9" - would be 2880x1800, 255 ppi, retina at 13.5"
MacBook and MacBook Pro 13.3": Currently 1280x800, 113 ppi, retina at 30.3" - would be 2560x1600, 227 ppi, retina at 15.1"
MacBook Pro 15.4" low-res: Currently 1440x900, 110 ppi, retina at 31.2" - would be 2880x1800, 221 ppi, retina at 15.6"
MacBook Pro 15.4" high-res: Currently 1680x1050, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3360x2100, 257 ppi, retina at 13.4"
MacBook Pro 17.0": Currently 1920x1200, 133 ppi, retina at 25.8" - would be 3840x2400, 266 ppi, retina at 12.9"
iMac 21.5": Currently 1920x1080, 102 ppi, retina at 33.6" - would be 3840x2160, 205 ppi, retina at 16.8"
iMac/Cinema Display 27": Currently 2560x1440, 109 ppi, retina at 31.6" - would be 5120x2880, 218 ppi, retina at 15.8"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 low-res: 1366x768, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 2732x1536, 236 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 high-res: 1600x900, 138 ppi, retina at 24.9" - would be 3200x1800, 276 ppi, retina at 12.4"
Theoretical 15.6" 16:9: 1600x900, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 3200x1800, 235 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 17.1" 16:9: 1920x1080, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3840x2160, 258 ppi, retina at 13.3"
Hrm. I am noticing a problem here for getting consistent resolutions when getting 16:9 into the mix... and, interestingly, Apple stayed on 16:10 for the 13.3" MBA. So, I wonder if this could even be a red herring of some kind? Because 3200x2000 doesn't really match up with any expected 16:10 resolution...
(Current lineup can do 255-270 ppi, which is fairly tight, ignoring the 13.3" MB(P) and the low-res 15.4" MBP, but going to 16:9, either desktop area would shrink for many users (and even then, the 11.6" and 17.1" wouldn't fit in well), or there would be a wide variance in ppi.)
Another thing to consider is the $3.9 billion that Apple pumped into LCD makers... possibly to secure a supply of retina panels?
(In case you can't tell, I'm SERIOUS about my high ppi displays. Looking at a IDTech IAQX10N, a 2048x1536 15.0" 171 ppi IPS display right now, and I'm stuck on a 5 year old machine because of it. Whoever makes something roughly equivalent or better gets my business, unless they're Sony.)
3200x2000 background: A bit odd choice of resolution, but I think they're making a 16:10 resolution that they'll crop to 16:9 for the machine with an actually 3200px wide display.
But, that does indicate a few things.
3200x1800 makes sense if you're pixel quadrupling a 1600x900 display, which is what a 15.6" 16:9 MBP at current pixel densities would be. But, it DOESN'T make sense for pixel quadrupling the 17" MBP, or any of the desktop displays.
If the 15.6" or 15.4" MBP gets this, and the 17" doesn't... that means that (and this is pure conjecture here) the 17" isn't long for the world. How well do they sell, anyway?
As for display technology supporting a pixel-quadrupled iMac, we've had the technology for a pixel-quadrupled 21.5" iMac since 2001. The IBM T221, a 3840x2400 22.2" monitor, is the same density as that theoretical display. It was $18,000 when it came out, and by the time IBM pulled the plug on IDTech, a Viewsonic-branded version of the T221, the VP2290b, was in the $4000 ballpark in 2005. So, had the T221 followed a curve influenced more by technology improvements than by the market getting saturated with unusable monitors, we'd be seeing these panels in the $2000 range nowadays, as a standalone monitor, I think.
Now, to look at all the machines that Apple has. Keep in mind that I think that only pro hardware will get this, and Apple likes to stick to around 100-110 PPI for desktops, and 110-130 PPI for laptops.
I'll go ahead and speculate on theoretical 16:9 variants of existing models, too.
MacBook Air 11.6": Currently 1366x768, 135 ppi, retina at 25.4" - would be 2732x1536, 270 ppi, retina at 12.7"
MacBook Air 13.3": Currently 1440x900, 128 ppi, retina at 26.9" - would be 2880x1800, 255 ppi, retina at 13.5"
MacBook and MacBook Pro 13.3": Currently 1280x800, 113 ppi, retina at 30.3" - would be 2560x1600, 227 ppi, retina at 15.1"
MacBook Pro 15.4" low-res: Currently 1440x900, 110 ppi, retina at 31.2" - would be 2880x1800, 221 ppi, retina at 15.6"
MacBook Pro 15.4" high-res: Currently 1680x1050, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3360x2100, 257 ppi, retina at 13.4"
MacBook Pro 17.0": Currently 1920x1200, 133 ppi, retina at 25.8" - would be 3840x2400, 266 ppi, retina at 12.9"
iMac 21.5": Currently 1920x1080, 102 ppi, retina at 33.6" - would be 3840x2160, 205 ppi, retina at 16.8"
iMac/Cinema Display 27": Currently 2560x1440, 109 ppi, retina at 31.6" - would be 5120x2880, 218 ppi, retina at 15.8"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 low-res: 1366x768, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 2732x1536, 236 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 high-res: 1600x900, 138 ppi, retina at 24.9" - would be 3200x1800, 276 ppi, retina at 12.4"
Theoretical 15.6" 16:9: 1600x900, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 3200x1800, 235 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 17.1" 16:9: 1920x1080, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3840x2160, 258 ppi, retina at 13.3"
Hrm. I am noticing a problem here for getting consistent resolutions when getting 16:9 into the mix... and, interestingly, Apple stayed on 16:10 for the 13.3" MBA. So, I wonder if this could even be a red herring of some kind? Because 3200x2000 doesn't really match up with any expected 16:10 resolution...
(Current lineup can do 255-270 ppi, which is fairly tight, ignoring the 13.3" MB(P) and the low-res 15.4" MBP, but going to 16:9, either desktop area would shrink for many users (and even then, the 11.6" and 17.1" wouldn't fit in well), or there would be a wide variance in ppi.)
Another thing to consider is the $3.9 billion that Apple pumped into LCD makers... possibly to secure a supply of retina panels?
(In case you can't tell, I'm SERIOUS about my high ppi displays. Looking at a IDTech IAQX10N, a 2048x1536 15.0" 171 ppi IPS display right now, and I'm stuck on a 5 year old machine because of it. Whoever makes something roughly equivalent or better gets my business, unless they're Sony.)
Am3822
Sep 16, 02:07 AM
I've also had a look at the apple store shipment times, and I'm sorry to say that the 15" mbp's are still shipping in '1-3 business days'. I hope they won't restrict the processor/platform update (if there would be one) to the 17 model.
dadoftwogirls
Mar 26, 10:02 PM
Problem I have is timing. Why does Apple continue to release the new iPhone / iPad yet we have to wait months afterwards for the iOS update to take advantage of them? :confused: Last year it took until November for the original iPad update. Now they're going to offer the iPhone 5 with a several month lag for the iOS 5 upgrade?
doctor-don
Apr 26, 03:00 PM
Where do these survey companies get there data from? I have NEVER been asked any questions about stuff like this. Plus with statistics you can fudge the numbers to represent just about anything.
Interesting. I say the same thing when the news stations announce popularity polls of the President, healthcare reform, etc.
Interesting. I say the same thing when the news stations announce popularity polls of the President, healthcare reform, etc.
SirHaakon
Mar 31, 07:00 PM
Only for a year. Fill up that 20 Gigs and a year later you can either empty it down to the free 5, or pony up.
This thing will be sued to hell and back before the year is up, so it won't make a difference. :)
This thing will be sued to hell and back before the year is up, so it won't make a difference. :)
appleguy123
May 3, 08:46 PM
Could I just explore the first room and save a turn for later(I'm not necessarily wanting to do this, just asking if it's possible)?
yankeedoodle
Nov 22, 02:16 AM
Wasn't it exactly the same story with the iPod?
Yep. And Palm doen't even know how to make a PDA right... Sorry, just my 2 cents and as much as I hate Microsoft: If there is one single thing that Microsoft's dullness department has overlooked so far it's the Pocket PC... Have a look at them next time you are in a store, compare them; have a look at their multitasking features, watch online TV on them -- they are by far not perfect and tend to crash (that's the Microsoft part in it) -- but they are still worlds better than any Palm out there.
I wish Apple would not only enter the phone business but also come back into the PDA market and show the Microsoft folks how to do it the Apple way. The Newton was fantastic and much ahead of it's time. In 1993 people just didn't know how to handle a PDA and didn't know how to integrate it into their daily workflow. Today, we are used to carry our iPods around wherever we go -- so if Apple could manage to enter the phone and PDA business via the iPod as a well known, emotionally positive vector (people buy the iPod because they want to listen to music and find out that it can also do much more than just play back U2 tracks), they could have a tremendous success.
Yep. And Palm doen't even know how to make a PDA right... Sorry, just my 2 cents and as much as I hate Microsoft: If there is one single thing that Microsoft's dullness department has overlooked so far it's the Pocket PC... Have a look at them next time you are in a store, compare them; have a look at their multitasking features, watch online TV on them -- they are by far not perfect and tend to crash (that's the Microsoft part in it) -- but they are still worlds better than any Palm out there.
I wish Apple would not only enter the phone business but also come back into the PDA market and show the Microsoft folks how to do it the Apple way. The Newton was fantastic and much ahead of it's time. In 1993 people just didn't know how to handle a PDA and didn't know how to integrate it into their daily workflow. Today, we are used to carry our iPods around wherever we go -- so if Apple could manage to enter the phone and PDA business via the iPod as a well known, emotionally positive vector (people buy the iPod because they want to listen to music and find out that it can also do much more than just play back U2 tracks), they could have a tremendous success.
ChrisA
Nov 22, 01:49 PM
Here is my prediction:
The number one characteristic of the first generation of Apple phones will be that they a "#$+@ expensive".
What does this mean? A concept they teach in business school is how to set a price to maximize profit. It's easy to see that if you price it to low you sell a zillion units but loose money and if priced to high you don't sell any so there is a sweet spot where the number of units sold times the per unit margin is maximized. In theory you can write an equation to model this then do some math to find it's maximum point. (remember: set the derivative to zero then solve for X from Calculus 101?) So much for theory. I doubt they will do that. I think Apple will price these higher then the theoretical "best" price. This way they sell far fewer units then they otherwise would. This let's them grow their service side of the iPhone business at a manageable rate. If Apple's business plan is sane they can't be going for a large share of the cell phone market
OK so in short they use a high price to throttle sales to a rate their service can support. I'm thinking this will be a $500 phone with a $99/month minimum contract. Basically you ain't going to get a free Apple iPhone with your $29.00/month 2 year contract.
Apple is partnering with an air-time provider so they will not get to keep much of the per-month fee, they will have to make money up front with hardware sales unless they can offer some non airtime monthly service like .mac
The number one characteristic of the first generation of Apple phones will be that they a "#$+@ expensive".
What does this mean? A concept they teach in business school is how to set a price to maximize profit. It's easy to see that if you price it to low you sell a zillion units but loose money and if priced to high you don't sell any so there is a sweet spot where the number of units sold times the per unit margin is maximized. In theory you can write an equation to model this then do some math to find it's maximum point. (remember: set the derivative to zero then solve for X from Calculus 101?) So much for theory. I doubt they will do that. I think Apple will price these higher then the theoretical "best" price. This way they sell far fewer units then they otherwise would. This let's them grow their service side of the iPhone business at a manageable rate. If Apple's business plan is sane they can't be going for a large share of the cell phone market
OK so in short they use a high price to throttle sales to a rate their service can support. I'm thinking this will be a $500 phone with a $99/month minimum contract. Basically you ain't going to get a free Apple iPhone with your $29.00/month 2 year contract.
Apple is partnering with an air-time provider so they will not get to keep much of the per-month fee, they will have to make money up front with hardware sales unless they can offer some non airtime monthly service like .mac
milo
Jul 21, 03:26 PM
This may be a dumb question, but why would apple just use the new chips in mbp's and not the mb? Dosn't seem to make sense. As soon as core 2 merom comes out every pc notebook will have it. Price wouldn't be an issue cause merom is same price as yonah, correct?
Because yonah will be cheaper. Yonah prices will drop again when merom ships.
And "every PC notebook" will most certainly NOT have merom. Cheaper PC laptops will still have yonah.
To date we have not seen Apple update any of their Intel products. So it may not be any different. The pressure will be on Apple with new processors coming out all of the time. Steve Jobs keps Apple from doing what you would exspect much of the time.
They speed bumped the MBP before it shipped, didn't they also do a minor update when the 17 shipped?
With the more frequent processor changes/speed upgrades that goes along with switching to Intel, what is Apple going to do with all the "left overs" of old versions of products?
They can sell them at a discount. But there won't be many of these in most cases, since for example the MBP doesn't need any additional changes along with swapping in a merom chip. The imac and mini could take merom just by swapping a chip in a socket (so the user could even do it).
Because yonah will be cheaper. Yonah prices will drop again when merom ships.
And "every PC notebook" will most certainly NOT have merom. Cheaper PC laptops will still have yonah.
To date we have not seen Apple update any of their Intel products. So it may not be any different. The pressure will be on Apple with new processors coming out all of the time. Steve Jobs keps Apple from doing what you would exspect much of the time.
They speed bumped the MBP before it shipped, didn't they also do a minor update when the 17 shipped?
With the more frequent processor changes/speed upgrades that goes along with switching to Intel, what is Apple going to do with all the "left overs" of old versions of products?
They can sell them at a discount. But there won't be many of these in most cases, since for example the MBP doesn't need any additional changes along with swapping in a merom chip. The imac and mini could take merom just by swapping a chip in a socket (so the user could even do it).
kavika411
Mar 28, 10:42 AM
As an owner of way-too-many iPhones, Macs and iPods, I welcome the idea of Apple putting the brakes on hardware while it perfects "the cloud" for both users and developers. I can't think of a single, reasonable upgrade that would make me excited about an iPhone 5 in 2011. I'd rather Apple get the data center/cloud going, teach us how it will help us on it's various hardware platforms (hopefully getting rid of traditional synching of iPhone, iPod and iPad), and then come back in 2012 with new hardware.
inkswamp
Nov 5, 03:31 PM
I'm actually not too thrilled to see this. Mac OS X does NOT need virus protection. Companies like this make OS X seem like it's prone to viruses.
Blah blah blah. Lack of AV software makes Macs very unattractive to business settings.
It installs various components into your system, so no, not until Apple modifies their guidelines.
Seeing how many things it does install and the size of the download, I wouldn't install this on any computer. Looks like FUDware to me.
One of the barriers to integrating Macs into corporate and business environments is the lack of anti-virus tools. Yeah, you can dismiss this as FUD (and maybe there's some truth to that) but the fact remains--someday, one way or another, there will be a Mac OS X virus. I defy you to find one IT dept. in the country that wants to be caught off-guard by that. If you're going to have Macs in a business environment, the IT staff needs to know that they're protected in the event of an OS X virus outbreak. Whether any OS X viruses exist now or not and whether AV companies are trying to sell products with FUD is irrelevant in that context.
Those of you who want to see wider adoption of Macs in business environments ought to be happy to see this kind of thing showing up, regardless of whether you personally need it or not.
Blah blah blah. Lack of AV software makes Macs very unattractive to business settings.
It installs various components into your system, so no, not until Apple modifies their guidelines.
Seeing how many things it does install and the size of the download, I wouldn't install this on any computer. Looks like FUDware to me.
One of the barriers to integrating Macs into corporate and business environments is the lack of anti-virus tools. Yeah, you can dismiss this as FUD (and maybe there's some truth to that) but the fact remains--someday, one way or another, there will be a Mac OS X virus. I defy you to find one IT dept. in the country that wants to be caught off-guard by that. If you're going to have Macs in a business environment, the IT staff needs to know that they're protected in the event of an OS X virus outbreak. Whether any OS X viruses exist now or not and whether AV companies are trying to sell products with FUD is irrelevant in that context.
Those of you who want to see wider adoption of Macs in business environments ought to be happy to see this kind of thing showing up, regardless of whether you personally need it or not.
DrDomVonDoom
Apr 6, 06:15 PM
-Sync wirelessly (No more messing with that iTunes syncing madness)
-SD Card (Expandable storage)
-File manager (Operates more like a PC)
-Can actually attach files in the stock E-Mail app (IPad cannot)
-Photo file management in stock photo app (Not possible in iPad without iTunes syncing madness)
-USB Port (This is HUGE)
-HDMI (Also pretty huge)
-Decent cameras
-Flash
-UI looks very cool.
Haven`t held a Xoom yet so just working from posted specs..
But I do have an iPad 1. Quite a disappointing experience for a power user.
The games rock though!!
Yet despite all this perfections over the iPad, it struggles to sell 100,000 units. Why? Why is this? Is it JUST the Apple on the back of it? Is it because iOS is so widely adopted, understood and familure? It shouldn't make sense, not to a power user. A power user is someone who deals with 1' and 0's every other, other every day. 1 +1 =2, thats true today, tomarrow and so on so forth. iPad is a anomoly, despite other higher powered, more flexable options its really the only name in the game. The human factor is what comes into factor, its a ameoba, a never ending algorithim of DNA that changes at will, and is persuaded just as easily. Its this Human factor that the iPad is what it is. Somehow Apple's best service is taming the human factor, its something in the DNA of the company that makes its products sell as they do. This annoys power users and lots of Apple Haters, it doesn't make sense, it shouldn't make sense. But outside of motherboards, 1+1=2 doesn't mean much when humans are involved.
-SD Card (Expandable storage)
-File manager (Operates more like a PC)
-Can actually attach files in the stock E-Mail app (IPad cannot)
-Photo file management in stock photo app (Not possible in iPad without iTunes syncing madness)
-USB Port (This is HUGE)
-HDMI (Also pretty huge)
-Decent cameras
-Flash
-UI looks very cool.
Haven`t held a Xoom yet so just working from posted specs..
But I do have an iPad 1. Quite a disappointing experience for a power user.
The games rock though!!
Yet despite all this perfections over the iPad, it struggles to sell 100,000 units. Why? Why is this? Is it JUST the Apple on the back of it? Is it because iOS is so widely adopted, understood and familure? It shouldn't make sense, not to a power user. A power user is someone who deals with 1' and 0's every other, other every day. 1 +1 =2, thats true today, tomarrow and so on so forth. iPad is a anomoly, despite other higher powered, more flexable options its really the only name in the game. The human factor is what comes into factor, its a ameoba, a never ending algorithim of DNA that changes at will, and is persuaded just as easily. Its this Human factor that the iPad is what it is. Somehow Apple's best service is taming the human factor, its something in the DNA of the company that makes its products sell as they do. This annoys power users and lots of Apple Haters, it doesn't make sense, it shouldn't make sense. But outside of motherboards, 1+1=2 doesn't mean much when humans are involved.
BruiserBear
Apr 5, 01:31 PM
Jailbreakers are funny.
MikeTheC
Nov 26, 05:17 PM
NEWS:
November 23, 2006 CNN
NEW YORK (AP) -- Cell phone owners will be allowed to break software locks on their handsets in order to use them with competing carriers under new copyright rules announced Wednesday.
Given the above news, NO cellphone company may soon be subsidizing ANY phones.
Well, it's a totally separate subject that's off-topic for this thread, but I would like to quote one single sentence from the related CNN news article.
The new rules will take effect Monday and expire in three years.
So, here's my question: If these rights are so important and have been recognized as being so important, then why would they want to deliberately sunset those same laws? Something here doesn't smell right.
November 23, 2006 CNN
NEW YORK (AP) -- Cell phone owners will be allowed to break software locks on their handsets in order to use them with competing carriers under new copyright rules announced Wednesday.
Given the above news, NO cellphone company may soon be subsidizing ANY phones.
Well, it's a totally separate subject that's off-topic for this thread, but I would like to quote one single sentence from the related CNN news article.
The new rules will take effect Monday and expire in three years.
So, here's my question: If these rights are so important and have been recognized as being so important, then why would they want to deliberately sunset those same laws? Something here doesn't smell right.
Bradley W
Sep 10, 11:16 PM
_