Bradley W
Sep 10, 11:16 PM
_
Collin973
Jul 21, 04:41 PM
Did any one notice that the 23rd is actually a sunday?
I didn't read through all of the posts, but monday is the 24th...
--CP
I didn't read through all of the posts, but monday is the 24th...
--CP
orbino
Sep 11, 03:26 PM
The assumption is for new Nanos and new 5G videos with more capacity...but nobody has conjectured on the form factors for these. Same thickness? Same sized screens? For what it's worth, we might have some circumstantial evidence in this arena...
Some of you might be familiar with our high-end, form-fitting iPod cases (Orbino (http://www.orbino.com)). Our cases are precisely fit for each model, so every millimeter counts.
Well...a couple weeks ago, the iPod marketing manager for Apple in Europe contacted us requesting samples for a press presentation "long lead time" consumer magazines. They were presenting the top iPod accessories for Christmas-related articles.
She asked us for three leather case models for the presenation: our Cambio case for the current iPod video; and our Sportivo and Cambio models for the iPod Nano. One would assume, therefore, that the form factors will remain virtually the same -- otherwise, why would Apple have asked us for those cases to present to the press for the Christmas season?
But then again with Apple, you never know!
Some of you might be familiar with our high-end, form-fitting iPod cases (Orbino (http://www.orbino.com)). Our cases are precisely fit for each model, so every millimeter counts.
Well...a couple weeks ago, the iPod marketing manager for Apple in Europe contacted us requesting samples for a press presentation "long lead time" consumer magazines. They were presenting the top iPod accessories for Christmas-related articles.
She asked us for three leather case models for the presenation: our Cambio case for the current iPod video; and our Sportivo and Cambio models for the iPod Nano. One would assume, therefore, that the form factors will remain virtually the same -- otherwise, why would Apple have asked us for those cases to present to the press for the Christmas season?
But then again with Apple, you never know!
Dr.Gargoyle
Sep 11, 06:18 AM
Do you usually carry 42" screens with you? No? That's what I thought....
It is excellent that you can play movies it on an iPod, but I hardly think that is enough to launch "screenplay". Most people want to see a movie on a large screen, not a computer or an iPod. Hence Apple need to release a Media Mac filling this gap. It could be as simple as a Mac Mini with a BTO Tv-tuner and a beefed up Frontrow.
It is excellent that you can play movies it on an iPod, but I hardly think that is enough to launch "screenplay". Most people want to see a movie on a large screen, not a computer or an iPod. Hence Apple need to release a Media Mac filling this gap. It could be as simple as a Mac Mini with a BTO Tv-tuner and a beefed up Frontrow.
Object-X
Nov 22, 10:30 AM
I know that many Blue Tooth features of my Motorola cell phone is disabled by Verizon. Even if Apple would make the best cell phone possible, how many of those great featues do you think the cell phone companies would actually allow the use of.
Remember simple things like ring tones, photos & such could easilly be transferred from the cell phone to your home computer. But this is not usually allowed. Could this be because the cell phone companies allow these features only to add to their revenue stream, not to give the cell phone user some additional user or usuable feature?
Unless the an Apple cell phone was available from all cell phone service providers & without many of the cell phone features disabled, do you think that it could be a success?
Bill the TaxMan
To answer your question: yes, I think it will be a success.
First, there are the rumors that the phone will be sold unlocked. If true, then the carriers will have no control over what features a phone has or can use.
Secondly, most of the features we are talking about are Internet related. As long as the phone has the ability to connect to the Internet all of Apple's .Mac services can be reached.
Last, but not least, Apple has a history of innovating around intrenched limitations. One of the reasons Apple has been successful in changing market dynamics with their products is because they change the game.
Keep in mind that this will just be the first phone of many. It is quite possible that some sort of wireless VOIP phone could bypass cell phone networks entirely. I don't think that will happen at the beginning, but it is a future possibility. Perhaps what is behind the Apple Google connection. Remember, I said Apple has a way of changing market dynamics with their technology.
I don't believe Apple would ever allow some other company to dictate to them what features or technology they can use. If cell phone carriers had that kind of control Apple would simply stay out. This more than anything leads me to believe the "unlocked" phone rumors; that would be very consistant with Apple's way of doing business.
Remember simple things like ring tones, photos & such could easilly be transferred from the cell phone to your home computer. But this is not usually allowed. Could this be because the cell phone companies allow these features only to add to their revenue stream, not to give the cell phone user some additional user or usuable feature?
Unless the an Apple cell phone was available from all cell phone service providers & without many of the cell phone features disabled, do you think that it could be a success?
Bill the TaxMan
To answer your question: yes, I think it will be a success.
First, there are the rumors that the phone will be sold unlocked. If true, then the carriers will have no control over what features a phone has or can use.
Secondly, most of the features we are talking about are Internet related. As long as the phone has the ability to connect to the Internet all of Apple's .Mac services can be reached.
Last, but not least, Apple has a history of innovating around intrenched limitations. One of the reasons Apple has been successful in changing market dynamics with their products is because they change the game.
Keep in mind that this will just be the first phone of many. It is quite possible that some sort of wireless VOIP phone could bypass cell phone networks entirely. I don't think that will happen at the beginning, but it is a future possibility. Perhaps what is behind the Apple Google connection. Remember, I said Apple has a way of changing market dynamics with their technology.
I don't believe Apple would ever allow some other company to dictate to them what features or technology they can use. If cell phone carriers had that kind of control Apple would simply stay out. This more than anything leads me to believe the "unlocked" phone rumors; that would be very consistant with Apple's way of doing business.
kxbcvoi
Apr 20, 10:56 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
otherwise...why would I buy an ip5?
You don't have to.
It doesn't sound like there's much there to tempt iPhone 4 owners but it should be a great update for those with the 3GS and 3G.
Of course, for iPhone 3G user, like me , iPhone 4s or 5 will be a big upgrade.
otherwise...why would I buy an ip5?
You don't have to.
It doesn't sound like there's much there to tempt iPhone 4 owners but it should be a great update for those with the 3GS and 3G.
Of course, for iPhone 3G user, like me , iPhone 4s or 5 will be a big upgrade.
Gottis
Apr 26, 02:13 PM
inevitable as android devices are available everywhere and in every price segment. remember, half of all American workers earn $505 or less per week.
*LTD*
Apr 5, 07:13 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8G4)
Who the hell at Toyota thought this was a good idea?? It was remarkably unprofessional of them to begin with.
You don't establish business relationships by breaking the other's EULA. This is frankly, shocking from a company such as Toyota.
Who the hell at Toyota thought this was a good idea?? It was remarkably unprofessional of them to begin with.
You don't establish business relationships by breaking the other's EULA. This is frankly, shocking from a company such as Toyota.
Arcus
Apr 25, 09:22 AM
Jobs is right - big difference with your phone remembering locations, as opposed to Apple actively gathering it.
I totally agree. Just give users a way to kill the database and issue is over. What I would like to know is what was the original purpose?
I totally agree. Just give users a way to kill the database and issue is over. What I would like to know is what was the original purpose?
Ca1icoJack
Apr 18, 04:28 PM
The "look" of icons clearly can not be patented.
Apple *have* patented the look of icons: http://www.edibleapple.com/apple-granted-eu-patents-on-24-ios-icon-designs/ and Samsung clearly infringes on them.
(I'm not sure if a similar, US patent exists.)
Apple *have* patented the look of icons: http://www.edibleapple.com/apple-granted-eu-patents-on-24-ios-icon-designs/ and Samsung clearly infringes on them.
(I'm not sure if a similar, US patent exists.)
MacApple21
Apr 7, 10:20 AM
So, what is Apple doing with a bunch of 7" touch screens, since Jobs said "7 inch tablets are dead on arrival"?
I also don't recall RIM ever giving a date before April 19th.
Well, perhaps it's not 7" screens Apple is buying, but production capacity, which consequently hinders competitors from having their orders produced.
I also don't recall RIM ever giving a date before April 19th.
Well, perhaps it's not 7" screens Apple is buying, but production capacity, which consequently hinders competitors from having their orders produced.
-aggie-
May 4, 07:50 PM
Anon proceed forthwith lest I transmute DP to a small rat.
hulugu
Apr 19, 02:08 PM
What does "willing to be convinced" mean? Will you read Human Action by Mises? It's a thousand pages of thoroughly explained economics. You don't have to read the whole thing, just the sections pertaining to monetary policy and taxes.
Well, I'm willing to read about it and really try to understand your point of view.
If you are waiting for a super intelligent, eloquent, and succinct guy to spend a lot of time convincing people on message boards in order to be convinced of anything you don't already believe, you'll never change your mind about anything. From my end, I don't have the wherewithal or inclination to spend more than a few minutes on a post. So you're really only doing yourself a disservice by passively waiting for someone with all the answers- someone who is also willing to spend as much time as necessary to convince a complete stranger who completely disagrees with him.
I thought we were just having a conversation...what I'm really looking for is a succinct argument as a frame for further investigation. I'm not convinced by either "side" here, but I am challenging your assertions because I'm trying to get a stronger sense of your point of view and where its edges are. So, if it feels like I'm picking at you, it's only because I find your arguments interesting and strong enough to be worth chewing on.
Well, I'm willing to read about it and really try to understand your point of view.
If you are waiting for a super intelligent, eloquent, and succinct guy to spend a lot of time convincing people on message boards in order to be convinced of anything you don't already believe, you'll never change your mind about anything. From my end, I don't have the wherewithal or inclination to spend more than a few minutes on a post. So you're really only doing yourself a disservice by passively waiting for someone with all the answers- someone who is also willing to spend as much time as necessary to convince a complete stranger who completely disagrees with him.
I thought we were just having a conversation...what I'm really looking for is a succinct argument as a frame for further investigation. I'm not convinced by either "side" here, but I am challenging your assertions because I'm trying to get a stronger sense of your point of view and where its edges are. So, if it feels like I'm picking at you, it's only because I find your arguments interesting and strong enough to be worth chewing on.
thogs_cave
Aug 11, 09:57 AM
Damn, and I just got my new MacBook yesterday
Plus if my MacBook gets lonely and depressed he can talk to my 1st gen PowerMac G5
Shasta
I really doubt that the MacBook will be updated that quickly. It wouldn't make much sense, but then again we are talking Apple.
And, don't worry. My MacBook and 1st-gen G5 get along just fine. :D
Plus if my MacBook gets lonely and depressed he can talk to my 1st gen PowerMac G5
Shasta
I really doubt that the MacBook will be updated that quickly. It wouldn't make much sense, but then again we are talking Apple.
And, don't worry. My MacBook and 1st-gen G5 get along just fine. :D
mdriftmeyer
Apr 21, 06:52 PM
I don't see this replacing the Mac Pro Tower. I see it as another solution within the Mac Pro family aimed at the Final Cut Pro Market where the use of several 3U Form Factor Systems would be used for Distributed Compiling/Rendering, etc.
It would be clearly also targeted for Engineering, Medical, Bio-sciences, etc where using OpenCL and GCD in their apps would provide a huge collection of streams/cores to leverage.
It would be clearly also targeted for Engineering, Medical, Bio-sciences, etc where using OpenCL and GCD in their apps would provide a huge collection of streams/cores to leverage.
Daveoc64
May 4, 03:15 PM
That's NOT the context here.
I'm the one that raised the point in the first place! I think I set the context!
And don't tell me you take the EULA seriously.
I do. I don't have any need to violate it. I only have one Mac.
All of my computers have a fully licenced copy of Windows XP or 7 on them.
I'm the one that raised the point in the first place! I think I set the context!
And don't tell me you take the EULA seriously.
I do. I don't have any need to violate it. I only have one Mac.
All of my computers have a fully licenced copy of Windows XP or 7 on them.
BRLawyer
Aug 4, 03:10 PM
1. If you check Apple's knowledge database or the manual that come with MBP, it actually says not to put this laptop on top of your lap, or it'll cause discomfort and potentially a burn with prolonged use. Now that's a new thing for a Powerbook or iBook user. Almost all the reviews of MBP state one con throughout, and thats the heat it dissipates. I own a MBP 2.16 Ghz and let me tell you it is very uncomforting to keep this on lap even through the clothing. Forget about using it in shorts unless you are in Alaska.
2. Less than three hours is not outstanding when you compare MBP to its predecessor and not PC notebooks.
3. The 17" MBP is as thin as 15.4". Why does it have faster D/L SD ??
HBO#39;s Game Of Thrones map
HBO#39;s Game of Thrones
2. Less than three hours is not outstanding when you compare MBP to its predecessor and not PC notebooks.
3. The 17" MBP is as thin as 15.4". Why does it have faster D/L SD ??
MorphingDragon
Apr 22, 05:09 PM
The server market is the backbone of the business market. Macs will be niche in enterprise as long as the backbone isn't there, and stronger than last time.
I'm going to have to disagree with that. Apple can be a great contender in the enterprise market without even touching server space.
There's plenty of client side areas Apple can compete in. God knows any of the current "Enterprise" companies aren't going to deliver a well polished client side, especially in the Mobile space.
If you need a "Certified Engineer" and $10k worth of training to set up your software, you're doing something wrong.
I'm going to have to disagree with that. Apple can be a great contender in the enterprise market without even touching server space.
There's plenty of client side areas Apple can compete in. God knows any of the current "Enterprise" companies aren't going to deliver a well polished client side, especially in the Mobile space.
If you need a "Certified Engineer" and $10k worth of training to set up your software, you're doing something wrong.
DeanSolecki
Mar 26, 10:06 PM
I feel like the iPhone 5 coasting in on iOS 4.x would imply a smaller upgrade. Otherwise a mega update to .x that could just as well be called iOS 5. (which seems less likely) Or this rumor is bunk.
I'm under contract anyway, so what do I care. ;)
I'm under contract anyway, so what do I care. ;)
Michaelgtrusa
Mar 30, 07:11 PM
Well we are getting closer.
whiteblooder
Mar 30, 01:07 AM
to weep too much for a company that chooses to do business overseas isntead of here in America, employing Americans.Why produce something for more money and less efficiently when it can be done better and cheaper elsewhere? This however are drastically improving though, not sure if we (Americans) could produce all of these things with taxes, restrictions, trade barriers etc.
jibjab kalonji
Aug 12, 02:53 AM
i don't think so. i'm sure apple put some sticky stuff on the processor and the motherboard so that it'll stay there basically forever.
iJohnHenry
Apr 9, 06:23 PM
The official Mac answer is:
That's great lol
Mac knows, that in the absence of a sign, the (9+3) is to-the-power-of. :p
That's great lol
Mac knows, that in the absence of a sign, the (9+3) is to-the-power-of. :p
Makosuke
May 6, 05:10 AM
I'm not so much joining in the discussion as publicly recording what I think is going to happen in a few years based not really on this prediction, but the way things are going in general, so that I can point to this post in a few years and either say "I told you so" or "look how clueless I was."
I think this prediction is right, at least in general terms, and while to hardcore geeks it may sound like a terrible idea, I doubt it is, and it makes a great deal of sense to Apple. That said, I expect Apple will continue to sell "pro" systems of some sort based on Intel chips for the foreseeable future, to cover the developer/Photoshop-jockey/video-editor market. They're just not going to sell all that many of them.
This is why the ARM transition will not be like the Intel transition (and remember we're not talking about something happening tomorrow):
For one thing, two years is a lot of time at the rate the ARM architecture has been advancing. Predicting anything about how fast the chips will be in 2013 (or how much Intel will have advanced by then) is difficult.
In the quarter the G5 Power Mac first shipped, back in Apple earned $44M on $1.7B in sales, and shipped 787K Macs. In the quarter the first Intel iMacs shipped, in Apple earned $410M on $4.36B, and sold 1.1M Macs.
In the most recent quarter, Apple's profit was $6B--more than their gross in and almost as much as the entire company's gross for all of 2003--on gross income of close to $25B. They sold 3.76M Macs, and more notably 4.69M iPads and well over 20M small-screen iOS devices. They also have something like $65 billion sitting in the bank, which is ridiculous.
Contrast this with Intel, which in the last quarter was doing extremely well, with gross of $12.8B and net of $3.16B. Or, for that matter, IBM, which had revenue of $24B and earnings of $2.9B.
In Apple was a relatively small-time player that got IBM to design a wicked-fast custom desktop CPU. In 2006 they were a somewhat larger company mostly on account of selling a lot of iPods, and weren't in a strong enough position to get IBM to do what they needed with the PPC architecture to the point it could compete with Intel's upcoming Core architecture. Today their Mac business alone is three times what it was then, it's the only segment of the PC industry actually expanding, and the company is HUGE--twice the size of Intel, in terms of financials. Heck, they could buy a controlling stake in Intel based purely on that company's market cap with cash on hand.
Further, of all those 25M+ iOS devices last quarter, every single one was running an ARM processor. While nearly 4 million Macs is nothing to sneeze at, Apple's bread and butter is iOS and ARM-based systems. They know them, they control the whole package, and they have an in-house CPU team for the architecture. One that, based on performance comparisons with the Xoom, is doing its job quite well. They've also managed to sell these devices at prices so low other companies are having serious trouble matching them, while maintaing very healthy profit margins.
As far as Apple is concerned--and with good reason--iOS on ARM is their future. There's no reason to stop selling Macs, but the market for console-style computers is not likely limited to handhelds and tablets--there's almost certainly a lot of demand in the bigger-laptop-with-a-keyboard space as well as large-screen desktops. With the rate of CPU power increase in ARM chips, within a couple of years they're likely to be powerful enough to comfortably handle desktop tasks, particularly considering that the average user really doesn't have any use for anything more than a basic dual-core system--everything else is for pros and bragging rights.
So, by way of prediction, I'd assume that Apple will continue to beef up its in-house ARM team, and once the desktop-grade chips are in place leverage that to replace what we currently think of as consumer Macs with beefier, larger-screen iOS based devices (or perhaps some iOS/MacOS hybrid thing to better handle indirect input, since pointing at a 27" touchscreen is ridiculous for more than a few minutes).
After all, Apple could--and very will might--dump a few billion dollars of their hoard into advancing the ARM architecture in some way that competitors can't match, and/or building out chip fab capabilities to keep prices low and availability high. Intel's entire R&D budget for 2010 was in the range of $6B, AMD's wasn't much over $1B, and Apple likes to control their own destiny, so it's not out of the question if they can hire good enough people.
I also bet that they will keep some "pro" machines--perhaps even those that'll keep the "Mac" moniker--in the lineup, for people who want more traditional workstation software, since there's still a lucrative market for that. These will presumably use Intel chips, but then who knows--even Microsoft is working on a version of Windows for ARM.
And outside the gamer market or the relatively small number of people who need or want a virtualized Windows environment, I seriously doubt most people will care. After all, it hasn't stopped them from lining up to buy iPads, and I have NEVER heard even the most ardent Windows fanboy rant about Windows with the same fervor as a half-dozen non-technical people I know personally who love their iPad.
Geeks and old-school Macheads like myself will wail and moan, and Apple won't care. If they did, the iPad would have run the MacOS.
In related news, Microsoft is in trouble.
I think this prediction is right, at least in general terms, and while to hardcore geeks it may sound like a terrible idea, I doubt it is, and it makes a great deal of sense to Apple. That said, I expect Apple will continue to sell "pro" systems of some sort based on Intel chips for the foreseeable future, to cover the developer/Photoshop-jockey/video-editor market. They're just not going to sell all that many of them.
This is why the ARM transition will not be like the Intel transition (and remember we're not talking about something happening tomorrow):
For one thing, two years is a lot of time at the rate the ARM architecture has been advancing. Predicting anything about how fast the chips will be in 2013 (or how much Intel will have advanced by then) is difficult.
In the quarter the G5 Power Mac first shipped, back in Apple earned $44M on $1.7B in sales, and shipped 787K Macs. In the quarter the first Intel iMacs shipped, in Apple earned $410M on $4.36B, and sold 1.1M Macs.
In the most recent quarter, Apple's profit was $6B--more than their gross in and almost as much as the entire company's gross for all of 2003--on gross income of close to $25B. They sold 3.76M Macs, and more notably 4.69M iPads and well over 20M small-screen iOS devices. They also have something like $65 billion sitting in the bank, which is ridiculous.
Contrast this with Intel, which in the last quarter was doing extremely well, with gross of $12.8B and net of $3.16B. Or, for that matter, IBM, which had revenue of $24B and earnings of $2.9B.
In Apple was a relatively small-time player that got IBM to design a wicked-fast custom desktop CPU. In 2006 they were a somewhat larger company mostly on account of selling a lot of iPods, and weren't in a strong enough position to get IBM to do what they needed with the PPC architecture to the point it could compete with Intel's upcoming Core architecture. Today their Mac business alone is three times what it was then, it's the only segment of the PC industry actually expanding, and the company is HUGE--twice the size of Intel, in terms of financials. Heck, they could buy a controlling stake in Intel based purely on that company's market cap with cash on hand.
Further, of all those 25M+ iOS devices last quarter, every single one was running an ARM processor. While nearly 4 million Macs is nothing to sneeze at, Apple's bread and butter is iOS and ARM-based systems. They know them, they control the whole package, and they have an in-house CPU team for the architecture. One that, based on performance comparisons with the Xoom, is doing its job quite well. They've also managed to sell these devices at prices so low other companies are having serious trouble matching them, while maintaing very healthy profit margins.
As far as Apple is concerned--and with good reason--iOS on ARM is their future. There's no reason to stop selling Macs, but the market for console-style computers is not likely limited to handhelds and tablets--there's almost certainly a lot of demand in the bigger-laptop-with-a-keyboard space as well as large-screen desktops. With the rate of CPU power increase in ARM chips, within a couple of years they're likely to be powerful enough to comfortably handle desktop tasks, particularly considering that the average user really doesn't have any use for anything more than a basic dual-core system--everything else is for pros and bragging rights.
So, by way of prediction, I'd assume that Apple will continue to beef up its in-house ARM team, and once the desktop-grade chips are in place leverage that to replace what we currently think of as consumer Macs with beefier, larger-screen iOS based devices (or perhaps some iOS/MacOS hybrid thing to better handle indirect input, since pointing at a 27" touchscreen is ridiculous for more than a few minutes).
After all, Apple could--and very will might--dump a few billion dollars of their hoard into advancing the ARM architecture in some way that competitors can't match, and/or building out chip fab capabilities to keep prices low and availability high. Intel's entire R&D budget for 2010 was in the range of $6B, AMD's wasn't much over $1B, and Apple likes to control their own destiny, so it's not out of the question if they can hire good enough people.
I also bet that they will keep some "pro" machines--perhaps even those that'll keep the "Mac" moniker--in the lineup, for people who want more traditional workstation software, since there's still a lucrative market for that. These will presumably use Intel chips, but then who knows--even Microsoft is working on a version of Windows for ARM.
And outside the gamer market or the relatively small number of people who need or want a virtualized Windows environment, I seriously doubt most people will care. After all, it hasn't stopped them from lining up to buy iPads, and I have NEVER heard even the most ardent Windows fanboy rant about Windows with the same fervor as a half-dozen non-technical people I know personally who love their iPad.
Geeks and old-school Macheads like myself will wail and moan, and Apple won't care. If they did, the iPad would have run the MacOS.
In related news, Microsoft is in trouble.