ECUpirate44
Apr 9, 06:21 PM
Official Google answer.
280546
280546
citizenzen
Apr 15, 08:23 PM
Your inability and insecurity to come within even the same area code of your own prior rhetorical question - choosing the greener pastures of everything-unrelated-to-something-you-started-but-can't-finish - says everything.
I guess you just can't relate to us creative types.
What are you, an accountant?
Next time, I'll try to say in numbers so you can understand.
I guess you just can't relate to us creative types.
What are you, an accountant?
Next time, I'll try to say in numbers so you can understand.
mscriv
Apr 14, 10:23 AM
But every American should be chipping in to solve the issues that we're facing.
We're in the lifeboat, and the water's rising. Everybody pick up a pail and start bailing.
Admittedly, I didn't read the article posted by rdowns, but from reading the quotes he put in the OP, I'd have to say I disagree somewhat with your comments. Sure, we should all be working together, but the point is that those who are making the most are not paying at the same share/percentage as those who are lower or middle income.
Is it fair and in line with "everyone chipping in" if the person making $50,000 a year has to pay 20+% of their income, but the person making $1,000,000 a year only has to pay 16%?
Additionally, let's not forget that there is a lot of tension between "everyone chipping in" and the select few who make the decisions about how what has been "chipped in" gets spent. I have no problem doing my part to pay taxes as I do benefit from roads, schools, etc., but I do have a problem with a lot of the wasteful ways in which tax money is spent. We could all benefit from some efficiency, improved budgeting, and controlled spending on the government level.
We're in the lifeboat, and the water's rising. Everybody pick up a pail and start bailing.
Admittedly, I didn't read the article posted by rdowns, but from reading the quotes he put in the OP, I'd have to say I disagree somewhat with your comments. Sure, we should all be working together, but the point is that those who are making the most are not paying at the same share/percentage as those who are lower or middle income.
Is it fair and in line with "everyone chipping in" if the person making $50,000 a year has to pay 20+% of their income, but the person making $1,000,000 a year only has to pay 16%?
Additionally, let's not forget that there is a lot of tension between "everyone chipping in" and the select few who make the decisions about how what has been "chipped in" gets spent. I have no problem doing my part to pay taxes as I do benefit from roads, schools, etc., but I do have a problem with a lot of the wasteful ways in which tax money is spent. We could all benefit from some efficiency, improved budgeting, and controlled spending on the government level.
KnightWRX
Apr 24, 12:09 PM
I do wish people would stop using the "marketing name" Retina displays.
Just say what screen resolution you would like.
Also, this story probably isn't about "retina" displays per say as people view them (4 times the pixel count) but more akin to new monitors that use DP 1.2's available bandwidth, finally breaking the 2560x1600 barrier we've had for the last few years.
This news item is probably mostly about new ACD resolutions/new iMac resolutions than it is about a whole revamp of the entire line-up to use the misused "Retina" monicker.
Apple knows what they meant by Retina, too bad most people around here fail to accept that meaning and go for the simpler "300 PPI screen".
Just say what screen resolution you would like.
Also, this story probably isn't about "retina" displays per say as people view them (4 times the pixel count) but more akin to new monitors that use DP 1.2's available bandwidth, finally breaking the 2560x1600 barrier we've had for the last few years.
This news item is probably mostly about new ACD resolutions/new iMac resolutions than it is about a whole revamp of the entire line-up to use the misused "Retina" monicker.
Apple knows what they meant by Retina, too bad most people around here fail to accept that meaning and go for the simpler "300 PPI screen".
RichP
Nov 22, 11:55 AM
I have to agree with some previous posters on here; its not going to be the featureset, but the implementation.
I have a Samsung Smartphone, and WinMobile isnt terrible, but its far from smooth or an enjoyable use. That being said, when you have "real" internet (aka not something that is just for phone use) and "real" Instant Messaging, you begin to actually use these things. The T-Mobile Sidekick, although a bit geared to the younger crowd, its a very good device in terms of its functionality and user interface.
I basically see the iPhone as a better designed, better user interfaced, and EXTREMELY easy to charge and Sync with a computer. Just like an iPod. All these phones lack in the sync department, Apple could dominate this (which, apart from the user interface, is the thing that sets the ipod apart. Plug it ina and it just works, no fuss)
Expect to see it sold through Apple unlocked, around 400-450 dollars. People used to pay that for an iPod, they will do so for a phone. Especially when there are VERY expensive ringtones, songs, etc. Apple will be the more economical choice in light of the expensive "services" the providers offer.
The industry will change. MS will release the "Pune" in 3 years to kill iPhone. In brown.
I have a Samsung Smartphone, and WinMobile isnt terrible, but its far from smooth or an enjoyable use. That being said, when you have "real" internet (aka not something that is just for phone use) and "real" Instant Messaging, you begin to actually use these things. The T-Mobile Sidekick, although a bit geared to the younger crowd, its a very good device in terms of its functionality and user interface.
I basically see the iPhone as a better designed, better user interfaced, and EXTREMELY easy to charge and Sync with a computer. Just like an iPod. All these phones lack in the sync department, Apple could dominate this (which, apart from the user interface, is the thing that sets the ipod apart. Plug it ina and it just works, no fuss)
Expect to see it sold through Apple unlocked, around 400-450 dollars. People used to pay that for an iPod, they will do so for a phone. Especially when there are VERY expensive ringtones, songs, etc. Apple will be the more economical choice in light of the expensive "services" the providers offer.
The industry will change. MS will release the "Pune" in 3 years to kill iPhone. In brown.
michaelrjohnson
Aug 2, 02:29 PM
But minor speed bumps is all they have to talk about.
It was the introduction of all these products that people keep referring to. IIRC, the MacBook, MacBook Pro, intel iMac, intel MacMini did not exist before January 1, 2006. All of these products were released in this calendar year.
It was the introduction of all these products that people keep referring to. IIRC, the MacBook, MacBook Pro, intel iMac, intel MacMini did not exist before January 1, 2006. All of these products were released in this calendar year.
DavidLeblond
May 4, 02:53 PM
The licence is only for one computer.
If you want to install it on a different machine you must uninstall the original copy first.
The Mac App Store says:
"You can install apps on every Mac you use and even download them again."
That implies that if I go on a friend's computer for 5 minutes once a year I could install Lion on it for no charge.
Obviously Lion will not follow App Store conventions seeing as it isn't an app.
If you want to install it on a different machine you must uninstall the original copy first.
The Mac App Store says:
"You can install apps on every Mac you use and even download them again."
That implies that if I go on a friend's computer for 5 minutes once a year I could install Lion on it for no charge.
Obviously Lion will not follow App Store conventions seeing as it isn't an app.
Cougarcat
May 4, 07:16 PM
I think Apple is doing it this way to cut down on the ability to make hackintoshes.
No, they are doing it to make installations easier. You can already install Lion on Hackintoshes.
Not to mention why would I want to waste space on a recovery partition anyhow ? ;)
It's not huge...792 MB. Handy for the times your boot drive isn't around. But I could see why you wouldn't want it on your air--every bit of space counts on an SSD.
No, they are doing it to make installations easier. You can already install Lion on Hackintoshes.
Not to mention why would I want to waste space on a recovery partition anyhow ? ;)
It's not huge...792 MB. Handy for the times your boot drive isn't around. But I could see why you wouldn't want it on your air--every bit of space counts on an SSD.
sinsin07
Apr 25, 08:55 AM
So Steve is saying there is no database of locations? Thats just an outright lie.
There is a lot of information circulating. Without knowing what he is referring to exactly your statement is outright bogus.
There is a lot of information circulating. Without knowing what he is referring to exactly your statement is outright bogus.
Shasterball
Apr 26, 02:18 PM
iOS needs to evolve. It is old and stale...
How terrible is the notification system? And it's been around for almost 4 years!
How terrible is the notification system? And it's been around for almost 4 years!
linuxcooldude
Apr 22, 09:23 PM
Yet another sign Apple is going to kill the Mac Pro.
You'll see! With Final Cut Pro on it's deathbed there is no way the Mac Pro is sticking around!
/s
I think quite the opposite. I think It will increase the market.
You'll see! With Final Cut Pro on it's deathbed there is no way the Mac Pro is sticking around!
/s
I think quite the opposite. I think It will increase the market.
CalBoy
May 5, 02:27 PM
Sorry it took so long to respond to this; I assure you it took only a second to Google (this is just the first result I found):
http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/pays-off.html
All of that is about the private sector switching to save money on their bottom line, something which I already mentioned should happen (and will without intervention).
The question is if the government mandated the metric system for EVERYTHING, from speed limits on the roads to the measurements on a box of Betty Crocker brownies. Many of these things won't actually lead to any increased economic efficiency because certain products can only be produced locally (say weather reports) and consumed locally. The cost of these industries switching would be quite expensive with no real economic gain because the products and services can't be exported or imported.
Is that wink a small admission of how silly your system really is? :) Sure, the math was simple, but how meaningful are all these crazy fractions? If I actually had to try and picture what these fractions represent, I'd want to convert the denominator into a multiple of 10 first in order to try and picture it. I might note that twice 48 is roughly 100, so I know we're dealing with a bit over 26%. Other fractions could prove more difficult. With the metric system, you never have to do this. You're always dealing with base-10, which is something we all understand and can picture, without having to memorise particular fractions and what they represent.
No the wink was just to say that 1) I would use a calculator, and 2) even if I couldn't, multiplying fractions is not hard at all.
Well, we could certainly argue that international communication would be a LOT simpler if there was only one language � and it would be! However, the reality is, we have a world with not only a diversity of language, but a diversity of culture, and the two are intricately linked. That makes the world a very interesting place, and being able to speak multiple languages would be a wonderful skill to have when travelling and engaging in other cultures. People are generally proud of their heritage, culture and language, and there aren't too many people suggesting the world should lose all of that richness in the interest of conformity. (Well, there are such people, but I think we can agree they're generally pretty scary.)
This is off topic, but language is but one part of culture. Customs, celebrations, and even measures, are all marks of a culture. In the process of colonization and free trade, we've actively destroyed many languages, customs, celebrations, and measures. I think we typically don't consider the loss of a measurement system to be too catastrophic because of the many conveniences that can be had from uniformity. But the same is true for language as well. I think the real reason we tend to gloss over measures is because they are typically easier to learn than a new language. Anthropologically speaking, however, they are very valuable in exploring a culture.
What is different about the US that it can't do likewise? I honestly find it perplexing. Be honest now� Is it because the French invented it?
Ultimately I think it comes down to the fact that the US is one of the few countries that had a great deal of popular sovereignty determine the outcome of whether or not we should switch to the metric system. Most other countries enacted policy through a quiet parliamentary action that was later carried out by agencies or at a time when most people weren't active in politics. Still others had theirs done at the point of a gun.
In the US there are a lot of veto points in the legislative process, making any significant change hard to do. Americans also tend not to have a great deal of respect for the sciences (scientific literacy is appallingly low) so it makes it a tougher pitch to the everyday person. Then there's also the issue that to most it's a solution for a problem that doesn't exist; why should they care about a measurement system when the one they are using right now is working for them?
You're not stepping out onto the moon this time. Just about every other country on the planet (and there are quite a few of them!) have gone before you, and it worked out just fine. Sure, it takes some time, but not as long as you might like to imagine. Let me come back to my own experience� I was born in the 70s, around the time Australia was just starting to transition to the metric system. The older folk may well have had a difficult time with it, but if so I was blissfully unaware of it. I came to learn what an inch was, since most rulers had inches on one side and mm/cm on the other, and people still, to this day, casually talk about their height in feet and the weight of newborn babies in pounds. (Yes, some old habits die hard.) But these sort of things are the exceptions. The transition to metric was so efficient, I, as a first generation growing up with it, didn't even notice there was a transition happening.
Seriously, you should be looking to Australia and other countries with successful transitions and learning from them, instead of just perpetuating all these fanciful stories of how terrible it's going to be to change.
The issue goes beyond just the prescribed time period to shift, however. As I mentioned above, there are a lot of infrastructure concerns. Not to mention that Australia in the 1970s was 13 million people, or about 24 times smaller than the current US population. The only other countries that were on this scale were India and China when they transitioned, and both had much less infrastructure and an already illiterate population that could be trained from the ground up.
Any realistic transition for the US would take decades.
http://lamar.colostate.edu/~hillger/pays-off.html
All of that is about the private sector switching to save money on their bottom line, something which I already mentioned should happen (and will without intervention).
The question is if the government mandated the metric system for EVERYTHING, from speed limits on the roads to the measurements on a box of Betty Crocker brownies. Many of these things won't actually lead to any increased economic efficiency because certain products can only be produced locally (say weather reports) and consumed locally. The cost of these industries switching would be quite expensive with no real economic gain because the products and services can't be exported or imported.
Is that wink a small admission of how silly your system really is? :) Sure, the math was simple, but how meaningful are all these crazy fractions? If I actually had to try and picture what these fractions represent, I'd want to convert the denominator into a multiple of 10 first in order to try and picture it. I might note that twice 48 is roughly 100, so I know we're dealing with a bit over 26%. Other fractions could prove more difficult. With the metric system, you never have to do this. You're always dealing with base-10, which is something we all understand and can picture, without having to memorise particular fractions and what they represent.
No the wink was just to say that 1) I would use a calculator, and 2) even if I couldn't, multiplying fractions is not hard at all.
Well, we could certainly argue that international communication would be a LOT simpler if there was only one language � and it would be! However, the reality is, we have a world with not only a diversity of language, but a diversity of culture, and the two are intricately linked. That makes the world a very interesting place, and being able to speak multiple languages would be a wonderful skill to have when travelling and engaging in other cultures. People are generally proud of their heritage, culture and language, and there aren't too many people suggesting the world should lose all of that richness in the interest of conformity. (Well, there are such people, but I think we can agree they're generally pretty scary.)
This is off topic, but language is but one part of culture. Customs, celebrations, and even measures, are all marks of a culture. In the process of colonization and free trade, we've actively destroyed many languages, customs, celebrations, and measures. I think we typically don't consider the loss of a measurement system to be too catastrophic because of the many conveniences that can be had from uniformity. But the same is true for language as well. I think the real reason we tend to gloss over measures is because they are typically easier to learn than a new language. Anthropologically speaking, however, they are very valuable in exploring a culture.
What is different about the US that it can't do likewise? I honestly find it perplexing. Be honest now� Is it because the French invented it?
Ultimately I think it comes down to the fact that the US is one of the few countries that had a great deal of popular sovereignty determine the outcome of whether or not we should switch to the metric system. Most other countries enacted policy through a quiet parliamentary action that was later carried out by agencies or at a time when most people weren't active in politics. Still others had theirs done at the point of a gun.
In the US there are a lot of veto points in the legislative process, making any significant change hard to do. Americans also tend not to have a great deal of respect for the sciences (scientific literacy is appallingly low) so it makes it a tougher pitch to the everyday person. Then there's also the issue that to most it's a solution for a problem that doesn't exist; why should they care about a measurement system when the one they are using right now is working for them?
You're not stepping out onto the moon this time. Just about every other country on the planet (and there are quite a few of them!) have gone before you, and it worked out just fine. Sure, it takes some time, but not as long as you might like to imagine. Let me come back to my own experience� I was born in the 70s, around the time Australia was just starting to transition to the metric system. The older folk may well have had a difficult time with it, but if so I was blissfully unaware of it. I came to learn what an inch was, since most rulers had inches on one side and mm/cm on the other, and people still, to this day, casually talk about their height in feet and the weight of newborn babies in pounds. (Yes, some old habits die hard.) But these sort of things are the exceptions. The transition to metric was so efficient, I, as a first generation growing up with it, didn't even notice there was a transition happening.
Seriously, you should be looking to Australia and other countries with successful transitions and learning from them, instead of just perpetuating all these fanciful stories of how terrible it's going to be to change.
The issue goes beyond just the prescribed time period to shift, however. As I mentioned above, there are a lot of infrastructure concerns. Not to mention that Australia in the 1970s was 13 million people, or about 24 times smaller than the current US population. The only other countries that were on this scale were India and China when they transitioned, and both had much less infrastructure and an already illiterate population that could be trained from the ground up.
Any realistic transition for the US would take decades.
Eidorian
Mar 29, 02:38 PM
Why in limbo? The "phone part" of the Iphone is widely acknowledged to be craptastic.True enough, I am still in search of a mobile internet device with a camera. The iPad 3G comes close except in price, size, and the mediocre camera.
I am not willing to frivolously spend money on such an endeavor just to return it to the store. I already feel guilty enough about my many product returns to the point where I believe my card number is just shy of being blacklisted. Thank god for cash.
I have a good inner circle of friends but our jobs and relationships are really killing what free time we have to game. That limits my desire to an Alienware M11x to have something portable for games.
The internet just needs to get to the point where it really is everywhere as a public service before I really buy into it. Sadly we are not there yet.
I am not willing to frivolously spend money on such an endeavor just to return it to the store. I already feel guilty enough about my many product returns to the point where I believe my card number is just shy of being blacklisted. Thank god for cash.
I have a good inner circle of friends but our jobs and relationships are really killing what free time we have to game. That limits my desire to an Alienware M11x to have something portable for games.
The internet just needs to get to the point where it really is everywhere as a public service before I really buy into it. Sadly we are not there yet.
bpaluzzi
Apr 25, 10:17 AM
You do realize everything you said is untrue, right?
That's par for the course for him. It'd be a page one story if he ever WASN'T spreading FUD.
I don't see any location consent popups on my iPhones here.
Are you serious? You're not looking very hard. Or at all.
That's par for the course for him. It'd be a page one story if he ever WASN'T spreading FUD.
I don't see any location consent popups on my iPhones here.
Are you serious? You're not looking very hard. Or at all.
appleguy123
May 4, 08:38 PM
It's all good, I guess. I don't think I would have ever understood the mechanics of this game anyway.
If we keep playing this format, I don't think it should go under the WW moniker because I don't see any similarities at all, and would like to play WW games while (and if) this format goes on in the future.
If we keep playing this format, I don't think it should go under the WW moniker because I don't see any similarities at all, and would like to play WW games while (and if) this format goes on in the future.
gnasher729
Apr 7, 11:55 AM
And just how could Apple be found to be absuing its position by buying what it needs to supply its customers whith product? Maybe if the iPad wasn't selling all that well but Apple can't keep up with demand as it is. Arguments like yours don't even make sense and I'll bet you some serious money that no one can produce a single instance of a company "found to be abusing its position" by buying what its needs to produce and sell its products. It would appear people like you are just angry that Apple is successful and want to take it down somehow. Stupid, just stupid.
The critical question would be: In the contract between Apple and the manufacturer, is there any clause that stops the manufacturer from selling to other companies? That would be anti-competitive. If a manufacturer says "RIM offered us $100 a piece for one million screens", and Apple says "We'll give you $110 for each" and RIM can't get the screens, that would be fine. If the manufacturer says "we can make 2 million screens a month" and Apple says "Ok, we'll buy 2 million screens a month", that is fine. If Apple says "Ok, we'll buy all you can build up to 3 million screens a month", that is fine. If Apple says "We'll buy 2 million screens a month, and you must not sell any screens to anyone else", that is anti-competitive.
I see people still don�t understand what a monopoly is. Apple would only be considered a monopoly if they used their power & influence to force the component supplier to cancel or move Apple�s orders ahead of RIM�s or any other.
You confuse "monopoly" and "anti-competitive". Being a monopoly is in itself just fine. It just means that you have to be more careful what you do than other companies, because what you do could be anti-competitive. For example, Microsoft has a monopoly in the operating system market. They can't refuse to sell Windows to Dell without getting into lots of trouble. Apple can refuse to sell MacOS X to Dell without getting any trouble. And people often confuse "competitive" and "anti-competitive". Being better than the competition is competitive. If company X makes a product that is a lot better than Y's product, and Y doesn't sell anything, that is competitive. "Anti-competitive" is when X does things so that Y couldn't sell their product even if it was better. For example, if the Windows license said that you are not allowed to use any word processor other than Microsoft Word, that would be anti-competitive, because even if I had a word processor that was better and cheaper than Microsoft Word, nobody would buy it.
The critical question would be: In the contract between Apple and the manufacturer, is there any clause that stops the manufacturer from selling to other companies? That would be anti-competitive. If a manufacturer says "RIM offered us $100 a piece for one million screens", and Apple says "We'll give you $110 for each" and RIM can't get the screens, that would be fine. If the manufacturer says "we can make 2 million screens a month" and Apple says "Ok, we'll buy 2 million screens a month", that is fine. If Apple says "Ok, we'll buy all you can build up to 3 million screens a month", that is fine. If Apple says "We'll buy 2 million screens a month, and you must not sell any screens to anyone else", that is anti-competitive.
I see people still don�t understand what a monopoly is. Apple would only be considered a monopoly if they used their power & influence to force the component supplier to cancel or move Apple�s orders ahead of RIM�s or any other.
You confuse "monopoly" and "anti-competitive". Being a monopoly is in itself just fine. It just means that you have to be more careful what you do than other companies, because what you do could be anti-competitive. For example, Microsoft has a monopoly in the operating system market. They can't refuse to sell Windows to Dell without getting into lots of trouble. Apple can refuse to sell MacOS X to Dell without getting any trouble. And people often confuse "competitive" and "anti-competitive". Being better than the competition is competitive. If company X makes a product that is a lot better than Y's product, and Y doesn't sell anything, that is competitive. "Anti-competitive" is when X does things so that Y couldn't sell their product even if it was better. For example, if the Windows license said that you are not allowed to use any word processor other than Microsoft Word, that would be anti-competitive, because even if I had a word processor that was better and cheaper than Microsoft Word, nobody would buy it.
Al Coholic
Apr 25, 09:34 AM
Jobs reportedly responded, turning the tables...
LOL!
Yep, them tables sure were turned because the CEO is in the trenches blessing every line of iOS code that goes into every product. Steve knows best. Rumor dispelled. Next item.
Seriously... the audacity of Apple in this day and age is mind-boggling. Everything they do lately seems to be a PR nightmare just waiting to happen.
LOL!
Yep, them tables sure were turned because the CEO is in the trenches blessing every line of iOS code that goes into every product. Steve knows best. Rumor dispelled. Next item.
Seriously... the audacity of Apple in this day and age is mind-boggling. Everything they do lately seems to be a PR nightmare just waiting to happen.
Ganymede
Sep 15, 06:26 PM
I have a MBP now, but would consider upgrading if they offered some nice redesign goodies. I love the MB's magnetic latch, but i love the MBP's keyboard (especially the backlight, though when I bought it I thought I'd disable that feature). The design elements that Apple (in my opinion) has to include are the easily swappable HDD and RAM like in the MB. The feature that i would love to see, but probably won't, is and eSATA port instead of FW800. I guess now i just wait and see....
124151155
Mar 26, 10:08 PM
Cloud-Focused? Any more information on this?
Mr.damien
Mar 31, 05:09 AM
Update: TechCrunch reports that this is indeed the "golden master candidate" build it discussed over the weekend, although the designation remains an internal one for the time being with Apple not expected to push out a final release candidate until around its Worldwide Developer Conference in early June.
Translation:
We were all wrong but we won't admit it so now we say that it's an internal secret ... :rolleyes:
Translation:
We were all wrong but we won't admit it so now we say that it's an internal secret ... :rolleyes:
ten-oak-druid
Apr 6, 07:14 AM
Just because you know how to design a computer user interface doesn't mean that you also know how to design a car. Cars are much more complex than computers -- all cars have computers built in, but no computer has a car built in.
Also, most of Apple's products look better than they are user friendly or work well. Their keyboards and mice are horrible, for example - every Microsoft or Logitech keyboard or mice blows the Apple competition out of the water when it comes to ergonomics. And ergonomics is something that's VERY important in a car. Apple very obviously sucks at that.
If you want a car that looks and feels like something that could have been designed by Apple, buy a Smart (Diesel). They're great and affordable city and short distance cars, I love them. The only difference is that if Apple would have designed the Smart, it would cost as much as BMW.
Well I don't quite agree that Apple, if tasked with designing a car, couldn't add to the industry. You say a car has a computer in it but that does not mean Toyota knows how to make a good looking GUI for an OS. They tried and it looks horrible. But they didn't have to create the OS to try. Same thing for Apple in this hypothetical. I'm not talking about Apple designing brake systems etc. I'm talking about what it would be like if Apple had the chance to take control of the design elements with feedback from engineers in the field of course.
Apple brought design elements to desktops and delivered us from the tan box tower. That has been the appeal of Apple for a while now. So what would the people at Apple do if tasked with modifying car design? A better job that toyota did with iOS I''m sure.
Also, most of Apple's products look better than they are user friendly or work well. Their keyboards and mice are horrible, for example - every Microsoft or Logitech keyboard or mice blows the Apple competition out of the water when it comes to ergonomics. And ergonomics is something that's VERY important in a car. Apple very obviously sucks at that.
If you want a car that looks and feels like something that could have been designed by Apple, buy a Smart (Diesel). They're great and affordable city and short distance cars, I love them. The only difference is that if Apple would have designed the Smart, it would cost as much as BMW.
Well I don't quite agree that Apple, if tasked with designing a car, couldn't add to the industry. You say a car has a computer in it but that does not mean Toyota knows how to make a good looking GUI for an OS. They tried and it looks horrible. But they didn't have to create the OS to try. Same thing for Apple in this hypothetical. I'm not talking about Apple designing brake systems etc. I'm talking about what it would be like if Apple had the chance to take control of the design elements with feedback from engineers in the field of course.
Apple brought design elements to desktops and delivered us from the tan box tower. That has been the appeal of Apple for a while now. So what would the people at Apple do if tasked with modifying car design? A better job that toyota did with iOS I''m sure.
42streetsdown
May 6, 01:54 AM
No.. They make mobile processors. Low power usage.
If you read the article again, it ays the rumor is for laptops. Very doubtful apple will move the desktop line to an ARM processor as there is nothing that competes with the current tech.
For laptops (specifically the air), the move may make sense. I don't see apple moving the whole macbook pro line to ARM. maybe the airs and the regular macbooks.
It still wouldn't be worth the software fragmentation that would take place. Plus, Intel has continued to make their possessors more power efficient.
If you read the article again, it ays the rumor is for laptops. Very doubtful apple will move the desktop line to an ARM processor as there is nothing that competes with the current tech.
For laptops (specifically the air), the move may make sense. I don't see apple moving the whole macbook pro line to ARM. maybe the airs and the regular macbooks.
It still wouldn't be worth the software fragmentation that would take place. Plus, Intel has continued to make their possessors more power efficient.
LagunaSol
Apr 18, 05:08 PM
It would be like Nintendo suing Sharp even though the 3DS screen is supplied by them.
You better believe Nintendo would sue Sharp if Sharp released a 3DS competitor that looked just like a 3DS.
You better believe Nintendo would sue Sharp if Sharp released a 3DS competitor that looked just like a 3DS.
tehdee
Jul 22, 05:43 PM
it's probably the people who just bought macbook pro's a few weeks ago. hah!
glad i haven't bought a macbook pro yet. must have merom! woooohoooooo!
seven months from now, some yutz is going to be saying the same thing about merom.
glad i haven't bought a macbook pro yet. must have merom! woooohoooooo!
seven months from now, some yutz is going to be saying the same thing about merom.