lmalave
Oct 3, 02:31 PM
This is a little disappointing that Steve is confirming to keynote MWSF 2007 when it's just October, which means he probably wants us to wait (I hope not). :(
Besides, hasn't Steve keynoted MWSF every year?
Apple has already gone on record as saying that they are moving away from tying product releases to MWSF. I think updates to products before MWSF could happen only if Apple thinks that it'll help them sell more product overall. For example, Apple is *not* going to release the iPhone before because they want consumers to buy the new iPod nanos for this Christmas *and* buy a new iPhone next year. That way they dip into your wallet twice within a year.
I think that for Macs, though, they could upgrade to Core 2 Duo for all macs (except maybe the MacBook and Mac mini initially). As part of that upgrade, I predict they will also update to 802.11n across the whole line, in preparation for the iTV launch. If they wanted to be really jerky, they could launch Core 2 Duo sometime soon (November the latest), and then early next year upgrade to 802.11n (providing a dongle for older laptops). I think iTV is too important, though, to play games like that, so I think that Apple will integrate 802.11n into its Macs as quickly as is practical...
Besides, hasn't Steve keynoted MWSF every year?
Apple has already gone on record as saying that they are moving away from tying product releases to MWSF. I think updates to products before MWSF could happen only if Apple thinks that it'll help them sell more product overall. For example, Apple is *not* going to release the iPhone before because they want consumers to buy the new iPod nanos for this Christmas *and* buy a new iPhone next year. That way they dip into your wallet twice within a year.
I think that for Macs, though, they could upgrade to Core 2 Duo for all macs (except maybe the MacBook and Mac mini initially). As part of that upgrade, I predict they will also update to 802.11n across the whole line, in preparation for the iTV launch. If they wanted to be really jerky, they could launch Core 2 Duo sometime soon (November the latest), and then early next year upgrade to 802.11n (providing a dongle for older laptops). I think iTV is too important, though, to play games like that, so I think that Apple will integrate 802.11n into its Macs as quickly as is practical...
bloodycape
Nov 16, 02:08 PM
I could DEFINITELY see them doing this. It could also be for an iPhone or iTablet.
iTablet I doubt that. That would most likely use an intel chip. iPhone, I think that would be TI chips in there(after all TI makes half the worlds cell phone chips). If you want to see the capabilities of the AMD Alchemy chip just check out the iStaion V43 and T43. This a great 4.3in portable multimedia player than can do GPS, DMBTV, and wifi.
iTablet I doubt that. That would most likely use an intel chip. iPhone, I think that would be TI chips in there(after all TI makes half the worlds cell phone chips). If you want to see the capabilities of the AMD Alchemy chip just check out the iStaion V43 and T43. This a great 4.3in portable multimedia player than can do GPS, DMBTV, and wifi.
LOZER
Jan 13, 02:16 PM
LCD Apple Cinema Display would be nice. Maybe a isight on it. I haven't gotten an ACD since im hoping they announce a new model.
tvguru
Sep 25, 11:41 AM
Rev. B Intel but Rev. A Core 2 Duo
Confusing isn't it?
Potato, Potahto. :D
Confusing isn't it?
Potato, Potahto. :D
more...
macaddict23
Aug 8, 04:35 AM
A $500 reduction on the Apple 30" is great, but what else does this mean? Apple wants to remain competitive? Is it to clear out inventory for new displays? I've been wanting to buy one of these 30" monitors ever since they came out. My friend, who works for Apple here in Elk Grove, CA can use his discount to buy to buy the monitor for $1499 (before taxes). That's a heck of a deal! But at the same time, I can wait 1–2 months if I know that Apple will come out with a new design.
Eidorian
May 3, 11:57 PM
I think your problem is that you apparently only have 2 uses for a piece of electronics. So no, probably not a product for you.We might be getting somewhere with Silverlight support.
The potential is limited only by you imagination.About as bleak as Apple's minimalism.
The potential is limited only by you imagination.About as bleak as Apple's minimalism.
more...
Max_Walker
Sep 12, 12:50 AM
That's no industry setting price point. For that price you can buy the DVD. watch it, load it on your ipod and the sell it on e-bay.
lordonuthin
May 3, 09:35 PM
well it's not looking very good. it should have posted a bigadv unit by now. and my number of gpu units are looking lower - which means that something crashed. man it only had 12 hours left on the bigadv unit when i left, and now nothing. it was folding way at around 34:30 per frame inside a VM.
Bummer :( that's aggravating...
Bummer :( that's aggravating...
more...
Counterfit
Aug 7, 09:44 PM
I think the Volt is a technological dead-end given the steep US$41,000 price
What does the price have to do with the future of technology? I've already mentioned how you can fairly simply replace the gasoline engine with some other power source.
and the fact your car is lugging around a big bank of batteries as deadweight.
The batteries are no more dead weight than a tank of gasoline.
What does the price have to do with the future of technology? I've already mentioned how you can fairly simply replace the gasoline engine with some other power source.
and the fact your car is lugging around a big bank of batteries as deadweight.
The batteries are no more dead weight than a tank of gasoline.
Benjy91
May 3, 01:55 PM
And why is this on mac rumors.
Does it really matter what the competition does.
Because now they're doing this, it's only a matter of time before they turn their heads to iOS?
Does it really matter what the competition does.
Because now they're doing this, it's only a matter of time before they turn their heads to iOS?
more...
darkpaw
Jan 15, 04:27 PM
I hate to labour the point, but the Apple TV just got a price drop of $70 from $299 to $229, yet the UK price is still �199! Or - to put it another way and point out the pricing discrepancy - twice the price of the US version!
Couple this with the fact that you can't use the new movie rental features over here until "later this year", I can't see anyone buying an Apple TV in the UK for some time.
Couple this with the fact that you can't use the new movie rental features over here until "later this year", I can't see anyone buying an Apple TV in the UK for some time.
ct-scan
Oct 3, 01:09 PM
iPhone will come out before X'mas.
Xmas 2007 maybe :rolleyes:
Xmas 2007 maybe :rolleyes:
more...
DewGuy1999
Apr 10, 05:53 PM
A&W Coney, Onion Rings and Root Beer for dinner...yum!
BC2009
Apr 25, 12:00 PM
Doesn't look too bad but on the other hand, the screen doesn't even look that noticeably bigger either (to the point of, "What is the point?"). And if even resizing it like that would make developers have to re-do their apps (I don't know how that works but I've heard people say with how iOS works, re-sizing would mean having to re-program apps), I'd say it's not worth it.
(I'm one of the ones who don't want a bigger screen due to the fact I don't want a bigger phone and I don't think they could squeeze a bigger one in without sacrificing usability and/or aesthetics. Bezels are useful for giving you some area to grip. This one doesn't look too bad for my concerns but honestly, it doesn't seem to give you a noticeable increase in screen size).
Resizing only means having to rewrite apps if the screen resolution changes -- especially if it changes by something other than a whole-number multiple (e.g. 1.5x versus 2x). All rumors indicate a 3.7-inch screen iPhone would have the same Retina-Display resolution (still maintaining over 300dpi).
Technically their "Retina-Display" stuff is based also on typical viewing distance as well -- so a "Retina Display" iPad, iMac, or MacBook (assuming those are in the works) may not go as high as 300dpi. However, a Retina-Display iPad would like require the same pixel-doubling (2x) that was done for apps not optimized for the Retina Display until updates came that included higher-resolution graphics.
(I'm one of the ones who don't want a bigger screen due to the fact I don't want a bigger phone and I don't think they could squeeze a bigger one in without sacrificing usability and/or aesthetics. Bezels are useful for giving you some area to grip. This one doesn't look too bad for my concerns but honestly, it doesn't seem to give you a noticeable increase in screen size).
Resizing only means having to rewrite apps if the screen resolution changes -- especially if it changes by something other than a whole-number multiple (e.g. 1.5x versus 2x). All rumors indicate a 3.7-inch screen iPhone would have the same Retina-Display resolution (still maintaining over 300dpi).
Technically their "Retina-Display" stuff is based also on typical viewing distance as well -- so a "Retina Display" iPad, iMac, or MacBook (assuming those are in the works) may not go as high as 300dpi. However, a Retina-Display iPad would like require the same pixel-doubling (2x) that was done for apps not optimized for the Retina Display until updates came that included higher-resolution graphics.
more...
Macky-Mac
May 4, 03:46 PM
No, we've had similar discussions before regarding a physician's willingness to treat someone due to their own personal religious beliefs, etc. and their response was quite different... the vast majority in that case believed that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT should not allow doctors to ask such questions or refuse to perform procedures they found philosophically reprehensible such as abortions... as if each physician in the country is some sort of robot working at the service of the government no longer allowed to think or reason on their own. But, now that it's about guns, they take a different approach. It's a very distinct hypocrisy.
nope; you've simply mixed up the issues and the responses
nope; you've simply mixed up the issues and the responses
unce
Jul 21, 09:29 AM
Starting to get annoyed by Apple...who cares if other brands have a similar issue. The issue is with the iPhone4, which is their product, and should be taking responsibility for. This is such a childish thing to do. I really thought Apple would be better than this.
:(
:(
more...
KnightWRX
Apr 28, 09:42 AM
So, please don't take everything I typed and generalize it, because it's not for everyone.
I do understand where Dejo, Balamw and the others are coming from though. And frankly, they are probably better suited to help you than I am. I don't have a lot of experience with Objective-C and Cocoa, not like they do, having mostly come into it recently.
Back to the code, here is a photo of my connections (ignore canceBigtimer). What you say is true I don't know how NSTimer works entirely , just some parts, I realize that and it is one of the reason I postpone my timer for a future update (need to study it).
I have two timers, because, like I said.. I don't have full knowledge of timers. I know now that 1 timer is enough, even if I use two timers and start them at the same time, the log only shows 1 loop and the countdown in separate labels show e.g. 59 in one and 58 in another and so on.
Ok, how about we work on making 1 timer work then ? The code you posted is very complicated and I don't think it has to be this complicated. Going 1 timer would simplify this.
I see your Start Button is associated to 3 actions. Is this really what you want ? Let's simplify this. As an exercise, make 1 method, call it startTimer (like I did) and have only that action associated with your start button. From there, you can call the other methods yourself as needed.
Once you have modified the code in this way, post again what you have in full, what it is doing and what you think it should be doing. We'll go from there.
You mention my two global variables, It makes sense that the timer does not stop because the variables are outside the method that creates the timer. is that whats going on?
No, the variables are "fine" where they are. They would be better positionned in the @interface block and declared as instance variables, but implementation scope globals work too.
What you need to do however is reset those if you want your timer to start back at 0. Somewhere in your "stop/reset" code, there needs to be an initialization of those back to 0 :
seconds = 0;
minutes = 0;
If your Cancel button is what should reset it, then this should be right now in newActionTimer. But ideally, we'll get rid of that function when you simplify the code down to 1 timer.
Look at my NSLog outputs in my screenshot earlier. There's 3 methods there. updateLabel, cancelTimer, startTimer. This should have given you a big indication of how not complicated you should have made this.
If you want 3 buttons, start, reset, stop, you'd technically need 4 methods, as follows :
-(IBAction) startTimer: (id) sender;
-(IBAction) stopTimer: (id) sender;
-(IBAction) resetTimer: (id) sender;
-(void) updateLabel;
One to update the label as needed, one to start the timer, one to stop it and one to reset it.
Also, NSTimer is not your timer. The timer is what you are creating with ATimerViewController. You need to grasp this. NSTimer simply calls methods, in this case, it should be update label. That's about all it should be doing. Both the stop and reset methods should release the NSTimer object instance. startTimer should always create a new one. However, reset should be the one to set back seconds/minutes to 0.
I do understand where Dejo, Balamw and the others are coming from though. And frankly, they are probably better suited to help you than I am. I don't have a lot of experience with Objective-C and Cocoa, not like they do, having mostly come into it recently.
Back to the code, here is a photo of my connections (ignore canceBigtimer). What you say is true I don't know how NSTimer works entirely , just some parts, I realize that and it is one of the reason I postpone my timer for a future update (need to study it).
I have two timers, because, like I said.. I don't have full knowledge of timers. I know now that 1 timer is enough, even if I use two timers and start them at the same time, the log only shows 1 loop and the countdown in separate labels show e.g. 59 in one and 58 in another and so on.
Ok, how about we work on making 1 timer work then ? The code you posted is very complicated and I don't think it has to be this complicated. Going 1 timer would simplify this.
I see your Start Button is associated to 3 actions. Is this really what you want ? Let's simplify this. As an exercise, make 1 method, call it startTimer (like I did) and have only that action associated with your start button. From there, you can call the other methods yourself as needed.
Once you have modified the code in this way, post again what you have in full, what it is doing and what you think it should be doing. We'll go from there.
You mention my two global variables, It makes sense that the timer does not stop because the variables are outside the method that creates the timer. is that whats going on?
No, the variables are "fine" where they are. They would be better positionned in the @interface block and declared as instance variables, but implementation scope globals work too.
What you need to do however is reset those if you want your timer to start back at 0. Somewhere in your "stop/reset" code, there needs to be an initialization of those back to 0 :
seconds = 0;
minutes = 0;
If your Cancel button is what should reset it, then this should be right now in newActionTimer. But ideally, we'll get rid of that function when you simplify the code down to 1 timer.
Look at my NSLog outputs in my screenshot earlier. There's 3 methods there. updateLabel, cancelTimer, startTimer. This should have given you a big indication of how not complicated you should have made this.
If you want 3 buttons, start, reset, stop, you'd technically need 4 methods, as follows :
-(IBAction) startTimer: (id) sender;
-(IBAction) stopTimer: (id) sender;
-(IBAction) resetTimer: (id) sender;
-(void) updateLabel;
One to update the label as needed, one to start the timer, one to stop it and one to reset it.
Also, NSTimer is not your timer. The timer is what you are creating with ATimerViewController. You need to grasp this. NSTimer simply calls methods, in this case, it should be update label. That's about all it should be doing. Both the stop and reset methods should release the NSTimer object instance. startTimer should always create a new one. However, reset should be the one to set back seconds/minutes to 0.
Leoff
Oct 29, 07:23 AM
Sorry, but that doesn't really make sense.
Turning June 2011 Calendar And
Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 2, 06:53 AM
Loosing Denmark, or Norway or both, doesn't matter one bit. It is a courtesy that Apple even allowed these small and meaningless countries to join in on the fun.
Since you claim you work in Denmark, you should know Denmark, as well as Sweden, is a part of European Union (EU). If you had done your homework, you should also know that EU implies that all non-nation specific laws should be idential for all countries in EU (very much the same as in US). That is, if the French and the scandinavians find that Apples DRM violates consumer rights, it has a very good chance to become accepted all over EU. Furthermore, since EU has about 460 million people whereas US only have 296 milion people, it should according to your argumentation about minor markets imply that Apple rather should dump the US market than the european market. :rolleyes:
You should know by now that a company sole purpose is to make money for the shareholders, and nothing else. I very much doubt that board of Apple or its partners even would consider dumping a close to half a billion potential customers.
Since you claim you work in Denmark, you should know Denmark, as well as Sweden, is a part of European Union (EU). If you had done your homework, you should also know that EU implies that all non-nation specific laws should be idential for all countries in EU (very much the same as in US). That is, if the French and the scandinavians find that Apples DRM violates consumer rights, it has a very good chance to become accepted all over EU. Furthermore, since EU has about 460 million people whereas US only have 296 milion people, it should according to your argumentation about minor markets imply that Apple rather should dump the US market than the european market. :rolleyes:
You should know by now that a company sole purpose is to make money for the shareholders, and nothing else. I very much doubt that board of Apple or its partners even would consider dumping a close to half a billion potential customers.
Rodimus Prime
Oct 6, 04:25 PM
I still disagree with you. The device is material. The network is supposed to be invisible. You're not supposed to notice the network. AT&T's service isn't great, but I'll put up with it to use the device of my choice.
The mobile industry has a strange business model compared to other industries. You don't buy a desktop computer that you can only use on one ISP or a car that you can only fill up at particular gas stations (excluding electric). However, If these industries were to operate this way, I still think people would go for the product over the commodity.
To me, and apparently many others, mobile service is just a commodity. Some may be a bit better than others, but in the end you're getting a comparable service. The devices, on the other hand, vary. And, yes, I still think the iPhone was game changing. All I remember before January 2007 were RAZRs and Chocolates. Unintuitive text-based interfaces with linear button-mashing controls in a hyped-up shell.
I think your arugument would be valid if phones were not subsudized and you have to buy them at full price. Because AT&T in this case is paying Apple $400 per phone you should choose a network first.
If ISP were footing the bill for desktop then Verizon add still would work but for cell phones most of the cost of the phone is paid by the networks. Not the other way around.
The mobile industry has a strange business model compared to other industries. You don't buy a desktop computer that you can only use on one ISP or a car that you can only fill up at particular gas stations (excluding electric). However, If these industries were to operate this way, I still think people would go for the product over the commodity.
To me, and apparently many others, mobile service is just a commodity. Some may be a bit better than others, but in the end you're getting a comparable service. The devices, on the other hand, vary. And, yes, I still think the iPhone was game changing. All I remember before January 2007 were RAZRs and Chocolates. Unintuitive text-based interfaces with linear button-mashing controls in a hyped-up shell.
I think your arugument would be valid if phones were not subsudized and you have to buy them at full price. Because AT&T in this case is paying Apple $400 per phone you should choose a network first.
If ISP were footing the bill for desktop then Verizon add still would work but for cell phones most of the cost of the phone is paid by the networks. Not the other way around.
maflynn
Apr 17, 06:58 PM
I wish Ubuntu went with Gnome 3 over Unity. Fedora is great but it is more "free" than Ubuntu as Fedora includes fewer/no? proprietary drivers by default so it is a little bit more work to get running on some hardware.
I like fedora, but I agree with you 100%, its a pain to upgrade because it requires a lot of tweaking to get it to work on my system. I went with an nividia GPU not only to make my desktop hackintoshable but also so I can download the the proprietary drivers. ATI linux support is pathetic. Still even with the drivers, I have to work at tweaking the system to get it working the way I want it too.
I like fedora, but I agree with you 100%, its a pain to upgrade because it requires a lot of tweaking to get it to work on my system. I went with an nividia GPU not only to make my desktop hackintoshable but also so I can download the the proprietary drivers. ATI linux support is pathetic. Still even with the drivers, I have to work at tweaking the system to get it working the way I want it too.
gkarris
Oct 17, 01:08 PM
Yes, I have the Samsung 46" LN-S4696D (http://www.samsung.com/Products/TV/LCDTV/LNS4696DXXAA.asp?page=Specifications), connected to both a Samsung BD player and a Core 2 Duo Media Center Edition mini-tower with a Quadro FX graphics card and HD tuners.
It does 1080p native, as well as native 1920x1080 on the PC.
Some of the Blu-ray Discs are simply amazing (House of Flying Daggers is superb), although others just make the shortcomings of the original production more apparent. (Kind of like a CD of an old live concert, where the CD perfectly reproduces the hiss and noise in the master tape.)
$4,000 for a TV? Quoting an commercial for Circuit City or Best Buy(?) when asking people about "HD", one of the answers was "Wicked expensive...."
It does 1080p native, as well as native 1920x1080 on the PC.
Some of the Blu-ray Discs are simply amazing (House of Flying Daggers is superb), although others just make the shortcomings of the original production more apparent. (Kind of like a CD of an old live concert, where the CD perfectly reproduces the hiss and noise in the master tape.)
$4,000 for a TV? Quoting an commercial for Circuit City or Best Buy(?) when asking people about "HD", one of the answers was "Wicked expensive...."
Rocksaurus
Oct 28, 06:30 PM
Yes, big parts of it come from the BSD world.
The BSD terms specifically allow derivatives to keep their sources closed, as long as credit is given.
Okay. Everyone's got their own morals, but if a few people are putting OS X on their PCs, I don't see it as a huge issue. Given how complicated it is it's not really a *problem*. But if a rich company like Apple takes a free thing and makes money off of it and only gives some of it back to the community that created it and gave it away, that seems less moral (this is my opinion) regardless of what the legal documents say.
The BSD terms specifically allow derivatives to keep their sources closed, as long as credit is given.
Okay. Everyone's got their own morals, but if a few people are putting OS X on their PCs, I don't see it as a huge issue. Given how complicated it is it's not really a *problem*. But if a rich company like Apple takes a free thing and makes money off of it and only gives some of it back to the community that created it and gave it away, that seems less moral (this is my opinion) regardless of what the legal documents say.
Eidorian
May 4, 04:14 PM
It's basically the ultimate "access" machine. Just yesterday I used my phone as a dictionary, store, terminal to enterprise software, link to external contact database. (also made some phone calls) iPad would be similar. Lookup, lookup, lookup. Web browsing is covered under that, too.
One thing the iPad brings that any phone cannot is a level of professionalism. In the companies I deal with, using your phone during a meeting looks questionable, like you're fooling around. Using a tablet or laptop to do the exact same lookup of whatever would be ok. It's a little silly, but that's the vibe I get currently.
This is not to say everyone has use for it. I'm happy with the phone, I'm not in that many meetings.You might as well consider me as someone that does not own a cellphone.
One thing the iPad brings that any phone cannot is a level of professionalism. In the companies I deal with, using your phone during a meeting looks questionable, like you're fooling around. Using a tablet or laptop to do the exact same lookup of whatever would be ok. It's a little silly, but that's the vibe I get currently.
This is not to say everyone has use for it. I'm happy with the phone, I'm not in that many meetings.You might as well consider me as someone that does not own a cellphone.
No comments:
Post a Comment