notabadname
Apr 22, 05:48 PM
That seems impossibly thin. Where are they going to put the hardware? Take the thickness of the glass and backlighting & the back-plate away and there's nothing left on the lower half.
Sceptic here.
Sceptic here.
KingYaba
May 2, 02:41 AM
Why?
Are we going to create a grave or a shrine to him? My hope is, that has been well-documented with witnesses galore.
Are we going to create a grave or a shrine to him? My hope is, that has been well-documented with witnesses galore.
VanMac
Jul 24, 08:33 PM
Very Cool.
One way to elimate scratches :)
One way to elimate scratches :)
840quadra
Jul 10, 02:54 PM
I think I need to start wearing glasses!
I could have sworn that the title was in regards to a Macrumors Page 3 unveiling.
I will now pay closer attention!
I could have sworn that the title was in regards to a Macrumors Page 3 unveiling.
I will now pay closer attention!
more...
Artful Dodger
Apr 1, 09:06 AM
This is the absolute worst winter in the New England states that I can recall. I am disenchanted by any more snow and look forward to some warmth. The symbolism is in the image!
I understand exactly, seems what misses us you get if your closer to the coast and the other way around, lovely color in the photo to brighten the mood though :)
I understand exactly, seems what misses us you get if your closer to the coast and the other way around, lovely color in the photo to brighten the mood though :)
Thunderhawks
Apr 13, 02:18 PM
Will there be a Matte option? :D
Will it come in white?
Will it come in white?
more...
DJRVDIO
Apr 14, 12:26 PM
1. mac
2.Itv
3.IPad
4.shuffle
5.Nano
6.Classic
7.Itouch
8.Iphone
9. ?
"ix" = 9
The only thing is what could it be?
International Cable/Networking service(internet)
Gaming Console to rival Window Xbox
It's a new product based on numbers but what?:apple:
2.Itv
3.IPad
4.shuffle
5.Nano
6.Classic
7.Itouch
8.Iphone
9. ?
"ix" = 9
The only thing is what could it be?
International Cable/Networking service(internet)
Gaming Console to rival Window Xbox
It's a new product based on numbers but what?:apple:
TheMacBookPro
Jun 6, 10:46 AM
$1000 worth of a beating he'd get if i were his parent. Luckily for kids, i hate them and would never have one. Ever.
You do realize that you too were once a kid as well? :rolleyes:
My brother has a android phone (:mad:) and if he buys an app from the android market and doesn't like it he can get a refund and it is deleted. I think it is in a 15 minute time gap.
However this would be a nice feature to the apple app store.
What's wrong with Android? My N1 does far more than what a 3GS can do... whatever floats your boat I guess.
You do realize that you too were once a kid as well? :rolleyes:
My brother has a android phone (:mad:) and if he buys an app from the android market and doesn't like it he can get a refund and it is deleted. I think it is in a 15 minute time gap.
However this would be a nice feature to the apple app store.
What's wrong with Android? My N1 does far more than what a 3GS can do... whatever floats your boat I guess.
more...
The Beatles
Apr 28, 10:14 PM
i cant even believe im commenting on this. And in other news, a fish farts in the atlantic.
trainguy77
Oct 13, 05:14 PM
well we just got passed again. we are now ranked #59 as a team. and there are plenty more teams on our heels
Yeah. Atleast we are gaining on 4 teams as well.
Yeah. Atleast we are gaining on 4 teams as well.
more...
LagunaSol
Apr 26, 09:05 AM
I agree with the others. Bring back the 24" model!!!
LordTyroxx
Apr 22, 05:12 PM
You went up in arms about the itunes logo, but when a mockup is truly horrible, you praise it? This is about the worst mockup i've ever seen.
Apple, please never ever put that awful backing on the iphone. ever.
You hip generation might like holes in your jeans and scratches on your phone, but I just think it's stupid. :p
Apple, please never ever put that awful backing on the iphone. ever.
You hip generation might like holes in your jeans and scratches on your phone, but I just think it's stupid. :p
more...
c.hilding
Dec 4, 12:41 AM
I agree. Tough love is best here. It's better to have the vulnerabilities exposed in this manner than in a live scenario. Let's just hope the press from this is enough for Apple to fix the problem before we have something bigger than a proof-of-concept exploit.
Yeah, when the poll was loading I expected 80-90% to be concerned about security, turns out only 40% are. So many ignorant "blissful" people that excuse Apple and think "It's Apple, of course it's safe". Obviously it's not. Ten serious exploits in about as many days of looking (they spent 30 days total, about an equal amount on linux and mac, and the rest on other OS's, so 10 should be right) and that is just scratching the surface. I was shocked that Apple actually had so many vulnerabilities, and for those that didn't find it scary that someone can install a program with kernel access simply by having you download their dmg file (not even opening it), well they're just being silly and need to realize that this is and some extremely bad things can happen if we are to go by that analysts words (saying OS X is not hot on security and that it is easy to find new hacks). :p
Yeah, when the poll was loading I expected 80-90% to be concerned about security, turns out only 40% are. So many ignorant "blissful" people that excuse Apple and think "It's Apple, of course it's safe". Obviously it's not. Ten serious exploits in about as many days of looking (they spent 30 days total, about an equal amount on linux and mac, and the rest on other OS's, so 10 should be right) and that is just scratching the surface. I was shocked that Apple actually had so many vulnerabilities, and for those that didn't find it scary that someone can install a program with kernel access simply by having you download their dmg file (not even opening it), well they're just being silly and need to realize that this is and some extremely bad things can happen if we are to go by that analysts words (saying OS X is not hot on security and that it is easy to find new hacks). :p
Loves2spoon
Mar 10, 07:14 PM
Poor Jon Cryer... They should give him a spin off!
more...
DeathChill
Apr 22, 02:58 PM
Really? So the fact that they did not have laptops with mainstream mobile quad core CPUs before Sandy Bridge when every other computers manufacturer had them is "immaterial" now? With LTE it's the same story all over. After they finally get in a year or two you'll probably be able to say again that it's immaterial. I bet it's very material to those who want iPhone with LTE now. Another major problem here is that Apple sticks to having just one model of iPhone (CDMA vs GSM differences aside). As if all people wanted the same thing. They don't.
Of course not all people want the same thing. That's why Apple isn't the only phone manufacturer in the world. You don't like their phone? Buy somebody else's.
Of course not all people want the same thing. That's why Apple isn't the only phone manufacturer in the world. You don't like their phone? Buy somebody else's.
mccldwll
Apr 28, 10:09 PM
Uh the fact that if you have a cellphone unless you want to pay for something that doesn't do what you want it to do, you are going to pay for a plan regardless so one really should not factor that in to the cost of the device (as it is assumed you are going to want cellphone service if you have a cellphone. And what cellphone you get does not affect the cost of your service so the service cost is irrelevant).
The point is it is silly to factor in a cost that you are going to pay no matter what phone you get as to the cost of the phone. The phone does not affect that cost and therefore it should not be factored in (the only way not to pay that cost is to buy a cellphone that doesn't do what it's suppose to since you have no service to use with it or to just not buy a cellphone).
It's thinking like that which makes lotteries so successful for raising revenue in so many states. Total cost is always a factor, and total cost includes not only plan costs for two years, but it also includes the value of the respective phones at the end of the contract period. At a minimum, a 3GS is going to be worth $100 less than an iPhone 4 after 2 years. So, with a total expenditure in the $1500-$2000 range, you'll be lucky if you save $50 in the long run by going with the slower, lower resolution, older technology model. Hardly worth it.
The point is it is silly to factor in a cost that you are going to pay no matter what phone you get as to the cost of the phone. The phone does not affect that cost and therefore it should not be factored in (the only way not to pay that cost is to buy a cellphone that doesn't do what it's suppose to since you have no service to use with it or to just not buy a cellphone).
It's thinking like that which makes lotteries so successful for raising revenue in so many states. Total cost is always a factor, and total cost includes not only plan costs for two years, but it also includes the value of the respective phones at the end of the contract period. At a minimum, a 3GS is going to be worth $100 less than an iPhone 4 after 2 years. So, with a total expenditure in the $1500-$2000 range, you'll be lucky if you save $50 in the long run by going with the slower, lower resolution, older technology model. Hardly worth it.
more...
i.mac
Apr 22, 06:14 AM
that samsung looks like it came out from 1975
Not exactly...
They saw the iPhone in January, then rushed to change their ui design. it hows in their crapy look.
Have we seen this take place recently with another samsug product?
Not exactly...
They saw the iPhone in January, then rushed to change their ui design. it hows in their crapy look.
Have we seen this take place recently with another samsug product?
Orme
May 2, 10:45 AM
I don't know if this is relevant but the shipping on the basic models say 24 hours but when I select the quad i7 option the shipping extends to 3 days.. When I selected the quad i7 option last night it said shipping only 2 days.. so it has changed by + 1 day :confused::rolleyes:
Sodner
Apr 12, 09:18 AM
HTC sensation > iphone 5
That is all
Enjoy the version of Android that comes on that thing out of the box. With all the HTC bloatware and Android fragmentation you'll be lucky to ever see a software update. :rolleyes:
That is all
Enjoy the version of Android that comes on that thing out of the box. With all the HTC bloatware and Android fragmentation you'll be lucky to ever see a software update. :rolleyes:
MagnusVonMagnum
Nov 20, 10:40 AM
If you don't address those very good reasons, your argument won't be very convincing. We do not want the CPU suck, the identity leaking, the UI inconsistencies, and the very real risk of "zero day" Adobe bugs.
Whom am I trying to convince? Illogical and irrational people who worship Steve Jobs and hate what he hates? Such people will not care or listen to any form of reason. That's why the word fanatic is in fanboy. No, I talk about an option to turn Flash on or off at will and you find it offensive to even offer an option. That is irrational at best.
Everything you fear would be avoided if someone just turned Flash OFF (or it could default to off and have to be turned on). I've said since the first post the word OPTION. You don't seem to comprehend that word or understand why those of us that would want the choice of having Flash are not asking you to give up anything in the process. You could always turn it off if it were present. We cannot turn it on if it's not present.
In other words, you are not competent to carry on a rational discussion. You're just here to vent.
No, I just don't see any point in trying to carry on a logical, rational discussion with someone whose "argument" is based purely on emotion. If it weren't, you wouldn't object to an option for those of us that don't agree with Steve Jobs point of view because an option satisfies all your arguments against having Flash because you can always just leave it OFF. It cannot do harm if it's off no matter how paranoid you may become about having it on your device.
Many millions of people have Flash installed on their Macs (let alone those using Windows and Linux) and they could remove it. They know that if they do, some web sites will cease to function properly and thus they leave it on. The security concerns you mentioned will be addressed as all security bugs are in both OSX and Windows.
Users of those 120M+ devices don't have to hope. They are already free of Flash!
Free of Flash? You say that in a tone that sounds like they're free of slavery or something. No, what they're free of is the ability to access millions of web sites that require Flash to view them or much of their content and I do not see that as a good thing. But my point of view doesn't require you to see it. I said from the first post I wanted an option to use Flash. You could still choose to turn it off if it were there. I cannot turn on what is not present nor should I have to buy some absurd 3rd party converter that requires their web site to be running to use it.
The analogy makes no sense. Nobody is forcing you to use any Apple product.
And so that makes it OK for him to behave as he does? A lot of us like Apple products, but we would like them a lot better if Steve would just stick to making the products unfettered instead of trying to force his opinions and world view on people in the process. He doesn't like Flash so he decides for everyone they should not use Flash. What if Steve decided iOS shall no longer support MP3 files, only AAC? I suppose you would accept that as OK too? Update iOS and your MP3s no longer function. Yes, that would be just wonderful if they did that. After all, AAC is superior to MP3, so why should Apple support a legacy inferior heavily pirated format? By your logic, they should not.
If you really want the "full web experience" of zero-day Adobe bugs, get an Android phone. Note: Android phones were vulnerable to the last zero-day Adobe bug. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt)
I don't want a phone period guy. I only want and use an iPod Touch. Is there an Android iPod Touch? Android didn't exist when Apple made the claims of accessing the full Internet either and it doesn't make that any less a lie.
The fact that I can't catch zero-day Adobe attacks on my iPhone is a great reason to praise Apple's decision.
You act as if Apple has no vulnerabilities to attack. That is extremely naive to the point of emotionalism once again. In fact it's just the opposite. Apple's security is rated as bad compared to Windows and only the fact that there are so few Mac users compared to Windows has saved it thus far. As the popularity of iOS devices has exploded, it's inevitable that it will start attracting malware. It's only a matter of time. Will you wish you never bought an iPhone on that day or will you recognize that companies simply have to find and patch vulnerabilities. Apple has patched numerous security flaws in OSX over the years. Should we plug our ears and say there is no such thing?
Do tell: what exact sites are you talking about? What exact legacy flash applications are running on those sites to which you can find no substitute?
A quick search (you do know how to do that don't you?) reveals offhand a few example sites that don't use HTML5 video (which could and may in the future, but that doesn't help someone today):
Gametrailers
GiantBomb
Vimeo
Playstation Blog
Stiq of Joy
Engadget
Try some of these effects on this site this with HTML5:
http://superior-web-solutions.com/
Maybe read this article on Flash. Most HTML5 is just a video player. Flash isn't just a video player and it didn't even start as one.
http://www.andrewgreig.com/2010/06/html5-is-not-a-flash-replacement-and-shouldnt-be-seen-that-way/
Perhaps you want an open standard? So when does Apple stop requiring Quicktime on their web sites? :rolleyes:
Nobody is holding a gun to your head. Nobody is holding you hostage.
If you don't like the choices that Apple made, then ditch your iOS device and get an Android. Simple.
No, they're just boring me to death with emotional arguments why everyone should either worship Steve Jobs or leave the platform and get an Android instead similar to the "love OSX or leave it" arguments the fanboys regularly produce.
This is the first little lie in your rant. The iOS users don't find it inconvenient. If Flash were so damn important to them, they would have bought some device that could run Flash.
The fact that you think my statement is a "lie" based on a subjective opinion tells me you cannot even tell fact from fiction let alone lies from opinions. Trying to see someone else's point of view is completely foreign to you. You view the world through tinted lenses. What you say is akin to if you don't like something about OSX, go buy a Windows machine, as if there aren't any compromises along the way on that platform either (not to mention having to replace possibly thousands and thousands of dollars worth of software for a given platform to do so). Not liking something about a given platform and wanting to change it doesn't mean another platform is more viable in ALL areas or that a person may wish to spend a lot of money to make that change just because of that one issue. Perhaps you'd like to send me a free Android phone to replace my aging 1st Gen iPod Touch that I bought before Android even existed? I'd happily consider such an offer. Of course I'll need replacement apps as well.
The people who bought those 120M+ devices disagree with you.
You seem to forge that I and others that actually want Flash are part of those people dude. Get over yourself. Just because you don't like Flash doesn't mean the rest of us have hatred for it. Some of us simply don't like our iPhones, iPads and iPod Touches crippled for no reason. Besides, how you try to turn my initial argument that I'd prefer to see an option to use Flash for those of us that want it rather than no option into this flipping crusade against all things Apple and Flash alike is beyond me. You are making mountains out of mole hills and lies out of opinions. For what? I can't make you see things the way I see them. I never wanted to try. That's why I said OPTION. But you would deny everyone who wants that option to have it just like Steve Jobs. Steve does it because he's a control freak (he was once ousted from Apple for this very reason). I imagine you do it because you love Apple. Sadly, I actually prefer Steve's reason.
This is the second little lie. Apple did provide a choice: they approved the SkyFire App. They didn't have to do that.
Didn't they? It doesn't violate their rules for an app so how could they not approve it without being outright liars? Oh wait. They have done that before so I can see your point. ;)
Apple has also announced they will approve Flash Apps using Adobe's cross-compiler for iOS. If there actually are crucial Flash apps -- you haven't named a single specific one so far -- the owners of those apps should be able to easily cross-compile their apps for the iOS App Store.
Apple formerly announced they would NOT support it. Why did they change their minds? Could it have something to do with the Justice Department starting an investigation into anti-trust behaviors by Apple policies? Noooo....it couldn't be that. Apple is allowed to single out companies it doesn't like and compete with to just willy-nilly throw specifically into their license agreements.
And that is the third little lie. Flash is a proprietary and legacy platform. It's on the way down now.
I say if you don't have Flash you don't have the full Internet and you call that a "lie" based on the above quote? What freaking UNIVERSE do you live in??????? ROTFLMAO. You cannot tell a statement of fact from an idea in your head that somehow says that the "full internet" doesn't include sites that use "propriety" formats. Come on man. That position not only ignore reality it even invalidiates Apple's own web site as being part of the "full Internet" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You need to try harder. Calling someone a liar when they are obviously stating facts and/or opinions just makes you look immature.
because accusing someone of lying when it's obvious
Even Adobe has acknowledged that a Flash-only choice is a bankrupt strategy (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999). After websites start offering their content with an open standard, you've gotta ask: what exactly is the value in continuing to prop up Flash?
First of all, you are the one that is calling it a "bankrupt strategy". I see nothing in that thread by Adobe that even addresses the matter. Adobe is simply trying to sell products and if they can easily sell more products to Apple users by providing an easy way to convert their hard work Flash sites into HTML5, they are going to do so and laugh all the way to the bank. That in NO WAY invalidates the fact that there are still plenty of Flash only sites out there and plenty of flash uses (e.g. Flash games) that HTML5 is no simple substitute for regardless. Until the Internet is Flash free, there is going to be a need and a will by people to have the option to view Flash.
The mere fact that this Skyfire app has raked in over $1 MILLION in sales already shows just how big that will is. Yet you reject the desire to be able to use Flash web sites as meaningless and unnecessary while the thread title alone proves you wrong.
Whom am I trying to convince? Illogical and irrational people who worship Steve Jobs and hate what he hates? Such people will not care or listen to any form of reason. That's why the word fanatic is in fanboy. No, I talk about an option to turn Flash on or off at will and you find it offensive to even offer an option. That is irrational at best.
Everything you fear would be avoided if someone just turned Flash OFF (or it could default to off and have to be turned on). I've said since the first post the word OPTION. You don't seem to comprehend that word or understand why those of us that would want the choice of having Flash are not asking you to give up anything in the process. You could always turn it off if it were present. We cannot turn it on if it's not present.
In other words, you are not competent to carry on a rational discussion. You're just here to vent.
No, I just don't see any point in trying to carry on a logical, rational discussion with someone whose "argument" is based purely on emotion. If it weren't, you wouldn't object to an option for those of us that don't agree with Steve Jobs point of view because an option satisfies all your arguments against having Flash because you can always just leave it OFF. It cannot do harm if it's off no matter how paranoid you may become about having it on your device.
Many millions of people have Flash installed on their Macs (let alone those using Windows and Linux) and they could remove it. They know that if they do, some web sites will cease to function properly and thus they leave it on. The security concerns you mentioned will be addressed as all security bugs are in both OSX and Windows.
Users of those 120M+ devices don't have to hope. They are already free of Flash!
Free of Flash? You say that in a tone that sounds like they're free of slavery or something. No, what they're free of is the ability to access millions of web sites that require Flash to view them or much of their content and I do not see that as a good thing. But my point of view doesn't require you to see it. I said from the first post I wanted an option to use Flash. You could still choose to turn it off if it were there. I cannot turn on what is not present nor should I have to buy some absurd 3rd party converter that requires their web site to be running to use it.
The analogy makes no sense. Nobody is forcing you to use any Apple product.
And so that makes it OK for him to behave as he does? A lot of us like Apple products, but we would like them a lot better if Steve would just stick to making the products unfettered instead of trying to force his opinions and world view on people in the process. He doesn't like Flash so he decides for everyone they should not use Flash. What if Steve decided iOS shall no longer support MP3 files, only AAC? I suppose you would accept that as OK too? Update iOS and your MP3s no longer function. Yes, that would be just wonderful if they did that. After all, AAC is superior to MP3, so why should Apple support a legacy inferior heavily pirated format? By your logic, they should not.
If you really want the "full web experience" of zero-day Adobe bugs, get an Android phone. Note: Android phones were vulnerable to the last zero-day Adobe bug. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt)
I don't want a phone period guy. I only want and use an iPod Touch. Is there an Android iPod Touch? Android didn't exist when Apple made the claims of accessing the full Internet either and it doesn't make that any less a lie.
The fact that I can't catch zero-day Adobe attacks on my iPhone is a great reason to praise Apple's decision.
You act as if Apple has no vulnerabilities to attack. That is extremely naive to the point of emotionalism once again. In fact it's just the opposite. Apple's security is rated as bad compared to Windows and only the fact that there are so few Mac users compared to Windows has saved it thus far. As the popularity of iOS devices has exploded, it's inevitable that it will start attracting malware. It's only a matter of time. Will you wish you never bought an iPhone on that day or will you recognize that companies simply have to find and patch vulnerabilities. Apple has patched numerous security flaws in OSX over the years. Should we plug our ears and say there is no such thing?
Do tell: what exact sites are you talking about? What exact legacy flash applications are running on those sites to which you can find no substitute?
A quick search (you do know how to do that don't you?) reveals offhand a few example sites that don't use HTML5 video (which could and may in the future, but that doesn't help someone today):
Gametrailers
GiantBomb
Vimeo
Playstation Blog
Stiq of Joy
Engadget
Try some of these effects on this site this with HTML5:
http://superior-web-solutions.com/
Maybe read this article on Flash. Most HTML5 is just a video player. Flash isn't just a video player and it didn't even start as one.
http://www.andrewgreig.com/2010/06/html5-is-not-a-flash-replacement-and-shouldnt-be-seen-that-way/
Perhaps you want an open standard? So when does Apple stop requiring Quicktime on their web sites? :rolleyes:
Nobody is holding a gun to your head. Nobody is holding you hostage.
If you don't like the choices that Apple made, then ditch your iOS device and get an Android. Simple.
No, they're just boring me to death with emotional arguments why everyone should either worship Steve Jobs or leave the platform and get an Android instead similar to the "love OSX or leave it" arguments the fanboys regularly produce.
This is the first little lie in your rant. The iOS users don't find it inconvenient. If Flash were so damn important to them, they would have bought some device that could run Flash.
The fact that you think my statement is a "lie" based on a subjective opinion tells me you cannot even tell fact from fiction let alone lies from opinions. Trying to see someone else's point of view is completely foreign to you. You view the world through tinted lenses. What you say is akin to if you don't like something about OSX, go buy a Windows machine, as if there aren't any compromises along the way on that platform either (not to mention having to replace possibly thousands and thousands of dollars worth of software for a given platform to do so). Not liking something about a given platform and wanting to change it doesn't mean another platform is more viable in ALL areas or that a person may wish to spend a lot of money to make that change just because of that one issue. Perhaps you'd like to send me a free Android phone to replace my aging 1st Gen iPod Touch that I bought before Android even existed? I'd happily consider such an offer. Of course I'll need replacement apps as well.
The people who bought those 120M+ devices disagree with you.
You seem to forge that I and others that actually want Flash are part of those people dude. Get over yourself. Just because you don't like Flash doesn't mean the rest of us have hatred for it. Some of us simply don't like our iPhones, iPads and iPod Touches crippled for no reason. Besides, how you try to turn my initial argument that I'd prefer to see an option to use Flash for those of us that want it rather than no option into this flipping crusade against all things Apple and Flash alike is beyond me. You are making mountains out of mole hills and lies out of opinions. For what? I can't make you see things the way I see them. I never wanted to try. That's why I said OPTION. But you would deny everyone who wants that option to have it just like Steve Jobs. Steve does it because he's a control freak (he was once ousted from Apple for this very reason). I imagine you do it because you love Apple. Sadly, I actually prefer Steve's reason.
This is the second little lie. Apple did provide a choice: they approved the SkyFire App. They didn't have to do that.
Didn't they? It doesn't violate their rules for an app so how could they not approve it without being outright liars? Oh wait. They have done that before so I can see your point. ;)
Apple has also announced they will approve Flash Apps using Adobe's cross-compiler for iOS. If there actually are crucial Flash apps -- you haven't named a single specific one so far -- the owners of those apps should be able to easily cross-compile their apps for the iOS App Store.
Apple formerly announced they would NOT support it. Why did they change their minds? Could it have something to do with the Justice Department starting an investigation into anti-trust behaviors by Apple policies? Noooo....it couldn't be that. Apple is allowed to single out companies it doesn't like and compete with to just willy-nilly throw specifically into their license agreements.
And that is the third little lie. Flash is a proprietary and legacy platform. It's on the way down now.
I say if you don't have Flash you don't have the full Internet and you call that a "lie" based on the above quote? What freaking UNIVERSE do you live in??????? ROTFLMAO. You cannot tell a statement of fact from an idea in your head that somehow says that the "full internet" doesn't include sites that use "propriety" formats. Come on man. That position not only ignore reality it even invalidiates Apple's own web site as being part of the "full Internet" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You need to try harder. Calling someone a liar when they are obviously stating facts and/or opinions just makes you look immature.
because accusing someone of lying when it's obvious
Even Adobe has acknowledged that a Flash-only choice is a bankrupt strategy (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999). After websites start offering their content with an open standard, you've gotta ask: what exactly is the value in continuing to prop up Flash?
First of all, you are the one that is calling it a "bankrupt strategy". I see nothing in that thread by Adobe that even addresses the matter. Adobe is simply trying to sell products and if they can easily sell more products to Apple users by providing an easy way to convert their hard work Flash sites into HTML5, they are going to do so and laugh all the way to the bank. That in NO WAY invalidates the fact that there are still plenty of Flash only sites out there and plenty of flash uses (e.g. Flash games) that HTML5 is no simple substitute for regardless. Until the Internet is Flash free, there is going to be a need and a will by people to have the option to view Flash.
The mere fact that this Skyfire app has raked in over $1 MILLION in sales already shows just how big that will is. Yet you reject the desire to be able to use Flash web sites as meaningless and unnecessary while the thread title alone proves you wrong.
Yvan256
Jul 28, 08:59 AM
I agree. I like MS strategy. They want to get their foot in the door and compete, then sell you all kinds of other ish. Look at the XBOX/XBOX 360, they may sell them at a loss, but with the Software, XBOX Live, and the Marketplace, they are making their money.
Wrong. The Xbox division still hasn't made a cent of profit. That's with the Xbox/Xbox 360 and everything related to it.
That's not entirely true. The Xbox 360 doesn't play HD-DVDs, but it does upscale standard dvds to 720p. http://www.avforums.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-256882.html
Better link:
http://www.xbox.com/en-US/hardware/xbox360/physics.htm
So what? That doesn't make it an HD-DVD player. And if you think the Xbox 360 is the only piece of hardware that can upscale standard DVDs to 720p, think again.
The only thing helping the Xbox 360 right now is the fact that it's the only next-gen console on the market right now.
Never too late.
Isn't that what people said when Apple released the iPod - its too late... Now look.
Well, when Apple released the iPod, MP3 players were still a niche market with mostly tech-oriented buyers. Just like Microsoft grabbed the market in the early days of personnal computing and has the biggest share today, maybe Microsoft will have to be happy with a 10-15% MP3 player marketshare in 5-10 years.
MP3 player = iPod, just like personnal computer = PC = Windows these days.
Wrong. The Xbox division still hasn't made a cent of profit. That's with the Xbox/Xbox 360 and everything related to it.
That's not entirely true. The Xbox 360 doesn't play HD-DVDs, but it does upscale standard dvds to 720p. http://www.avforums.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-256882.html
Better link:
http://www.xbox.com/en-US/hardware/xbox360/physics.htm
So what? That doesn't make it an HD-DVD player. And if you think the Xbox 360 is the only piece of hardware that can upscale standard DVDs to 720p, think again.
The only thing helping the Xbox 360 right now is the fact that it's the only next-gen console on the market right now.
Never too late.
Isn't that what people said when Apple released the iPod - its too late... Now look.
Well, when Apple released the iPod, MP3 players were still a niche market with mostly tech-oriented buyers. Just like Microsoft grabbed the market in the early days of personnal computing and has the biggest share today, maybe Microsoft will have to be happy with a 10-15% MP3 player marketshare in 5-10 years.
MP3 player = iPod, just like personnal computer = PC = Windows these days.
lilo777
Apr 23, 04:33 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
Seriously? An apple rumors forum is no place fo a shareholder? That's absurd.
"As you can see 260K people bought HTC Thunderbolt since Verizon started selling them (about a month). This translates to about 3 million phones annually. Clearly the demand is there. Also, you keep forgetting that other phones have swappable batteries."
If you want to play numbers, the iPhone on Verizon (same carrier as thunderbolt) sold 2.2 million in two months, compared to a quarter million in one month for tbolt. Saying that equals 3million annually 1) makes it compete better with the iPhone over two months on a single carrier and 2) assumes that the numbers remain constant. Being that people are figuring out that the battery life is dreadful (and you forget that the majority of the market doesn't want to swap batteries like it's 1999) and that android phones have a short cycle of being the hottest new thing, I don't think there's a basis to assume consistent sales in line with their opening month. Numbers can say anything when there's no common sense behind it.
I mentioned these numbers to prove totally different point namely that there are plenty of people who want LTE. Also, HTC probably has ten or so smartphone models. If all of them were as successful as Thunderbolt HTC would already be ahead of Apple :D
Seriously? An apple rumors forum is no place fo a shareholder? That's absurd.
"As you can see 260K people bought HTC Thunderbolt since Verizon started selling them (about a month). This translates to about 3 million phones annually. Clearly the demand is there. Also, you keep forgetting that other phones have swappable batteries."
If you want to play numbers, the iPhone on Verizon (same carrier as thunderbolt) sold 2.2 million in two months, compared to a quarter million in one month for tbolt. Saying that equals 3million annually 1) makes it compete better with the iPhone over two months on a single carrier and 2) assumes that the numbers remain constant. Being that people are figuring out that the battery life is dreadful (and you forget that the majority of the market doesn't want to swap batteries like it's 1999) and that android phones have a short cycle of being the hottest new thing, I don't think there's a basis to assume consistent sales in line with their opening month. Numbers can say anything when there's no common sense behind it.
I mentioned these numbers to prove totally different point namely that there are plenty of people who want LTE. Also, HTC probably has ten or so smartphone models. If all of them were as successful as Thunderbolt HTC would already be ahead of Apple :D
*LTD*
Apr 22, 04:56 PM
Good to see Apple catching up to the features Palm introduced two and a half years ago.
Who's Palm?
Who's Palm?
cslewis
Jul 24, 09:35 PM
How about a proto-telepathic interface? :cool:
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق