newbreed
Oct 20, 10:50 AM
The real problem here is that no self respecting trendy woman that is worth beaming to or plugging into, will be carrying a Toshiba Zune...
Only Steve could not say that in the interview. :p
Only Steve could not say that in the interview. :p
Jimmy James
Apr 2, 03:49 PM
So much misinformation in this thread and very few accurate replies.
More megapixels is better than fewer, because:
1. You can make larger prints
2. You can crop tighter
HOWEVER:
There are limitations with the lens and sensor. Putting more MP on the same sized sensor creates higher pixel density. We are at a saturation point with the current 5MP sensor where adding pixels will add substantial noise and degrade the image quality. 8 MP on the current sensor is a downgrade. At best, coupled with in-camera processing algorithms to deal with the noise, it's a lateral move. At best.
You can't simply stick in a bigger sensor, either. You are limited by the focal length, which is dictated by the thickness of the device. There is no magic way around this. Here's a lesson:
http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Optical/Focal_Length_01.htm
I won't even get into the lens.
More megapixels is better than fewer, because:
1. You can make larger prints
2. You can crop tighter
HOWEVER:
There are limitations with the lens and sensor. Putting more MP on the same sized sensor creates higher pixel density. We are at a saturation point with the current 5MP sensor where adding pixels will add substantial noise and degrade the image quality. 8 MP on the current sensor is a downgrade. At best, coupled with in-camera processing algorithms to deal with the noise, it's a lateral move. At best.
You can't simply stick in a bigger sensor, either. You are limited by the focal length, which is dictated by the thickness of the device. There is no magic way around this. Here's a lesson:
http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Optical/Focal_Length_01.htm
I won't even get into the lens.
stefan15
Nov 7, 07:05 PM
I really hope they choose to upgrade the default amount of RAM. 512mb is simply not enough. Sure some of you will argue, but I've tried a Macbook with 512 and one with 1gb and the latter is far better. To me it seems like 1gb is OSX's sweet spot, and 512mb is just barely lacking. I was pretty surprised when they decided to go with 512mb stock in the first place.
iGary
Aug 3, 02:47 PM
I actually remember you mentioning that. I should have screen capped that post. :rolleyes:
Not like anyone would want to see me run around my complex naked, but I don't think we will ever see a phone out of Apple, especially at WWDC.
And no Conroe in iMac. Evar. ;)
Not like anyone would want to see me run around my complex naked, but I don't think we will ever see a phone out of Apple, especially at WWDC.
And no Conroe in iMac. Evar. ;)
shawnce
Aug 3, 04:11 PM
So, 7th or 8th?
http://developer.apple.com/wwdc/schedules/monday_am.html
http://developer.apple.com/wwdc/schedules/monday_am.html
ChrisA
Apr 12, 03:30 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) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
it's about friggin time apple build a serious volume manufacturing plant in the US! end of story!
OK they build it. Would YOU work there? I think after screwing the rear cover into my 100,000th iPhone I'd go nuts.
it's about friggin time apple build a serious volume manufacturing plant in the US! end of story!
OK they build it. Would YOU work there? I think after screwing the rear cover into my 100,000th iPhone I'd go nuts.
andybno1
Mar 25, 12:43 PM
for the person who asked gestures on the iPad are still available you just need to go into xcode again and re-enable iPad for development
fivepoint
Mar 28, 08:19 PM
Take 5 minutes and watch this outstanding response to Obama's speech by Freshman Senator Rand Paul:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrrV_Txg47Q
Intervening in a civil war in a tribal society in which our government admits we have no vital interests to help people we do not know, simply does not make any sense.
What did you think of Obama's speech? Of Paul's? Which one more reflects your own worldview?
For me personally, this really emphasizes to me that 'change' isn't just a slogan; its an ideology, it's a worldview. It's time to start standing up for smaller government, less foreign entanglements, less debt, less stimulus, less handouts, less, less, less. Obama won't get you there, he's just more of the same... only worse. People like Rand Paul and his father represent real change, beyond what either two major parties have been able to offer during the past 100 years.
Complete Transcript:
The President of the United States often faces unforeseeable dilemmas that demand tough decisions based on reliable intelligence. The recent events in Libya presented President Obama with such a scenario. But how our Commander in Chief chose to handle this new dilemma raises serious questions about his understanding of constitutional checks and balances.
Libyan President Moammar Gadhafi is every bit the madman Ronald Reagan once said he was, but are the rebels adherents to Jeffersonian democracy or Bin Laden's radical jihad?
In then-candidate Obama said that "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."
I agree with candidate Obama. Unfortunately, President Obama has failed to heed his own advice. He has ignored our constitution and engaged us in a military conflict without congressional debate and approval
What imminent threat did Gadhafi or Libya pose to the United States? Obviously, the decision to take military action of this magnitude is something that should not be taken lightly, and should first require determining whether it is in the United States' vital national interest.
Over the weekend, even Defense Secretary Robert Gates admitted that America has no vital interest in Libya.
Our brave men and women in uniform are patriotic defenders of our nation. They are members of the greatest military in the world, and in times of war, I am confident of their willingness and ability to ensure that our vital interests are protected.
But they should not be asked to be nation-builders or the world's policemen. And they should serve in wars authorized and called for by the United States Congress, not the United Nations.
At the moment, there are uprisings taking place across the Middle East. The problem with sending U.S. military to help rebels in Libya or anywhere else is that we are taking sides in a conflict and on behalf of a people whom we know nothing about.
When, or if, there is regime change in Libya, what kind of leadership, exactly, will replace Gadhafi? Who are the Libyan rebels exactly? The Daily Telegraph newspaper in London reported over the weekend that some Libyan rebel leaders now claim they have members of al-Qaida within their ranks and are glad to have them. Why do we have American soldiers, our best and bravest, helping people in Libya who may be the very same people we ask our military to fight in Afghanistan and Iraq?
Intervening in a civil war in a tribal society in which our government admits we have no vital interests to help people we do not know, simply does not make any sense. Libyan society is complicated, and we simply do not know enough about the potential outcomes or leaders to know if this will end up in the interests of the United States, or if we are in fact helping to install a radical Islamic government in the place of a secular dictatorship.
Of even more lasting concern is how our troops were committed to this battle by President Obama.
The Founding Fathers understood the seriousness of war and thus included in our Constitution a provision stating that only Congress can declare war. The decision to wage war should not be taken cavalierly. As Madison wrote:
"The Constitution supposes what the history of all Governments demonstrates, that the executive is the branch of power most interested in war and most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care vested the question of war in the Legislature."
If President Obama had consulted Congress, as our Constitution requires him to do, perhaps we could have debated these questions before hastily involving ourselves in yet another Middle Eastern conflict.
The Constitution doesn't say the president can wage war after he talks to a handful of Congressional leaders.
The Constitution says Congress - all of Congress - is responsible for declaring war.
While the President is the commander of our armed forces, he is not a king. He may involve those forces in military conflict only when authorized by Congress or in response to an imminent threat. Neither was the case here.
We are already in two wars that we are not paying for. We are waging war across the Middle East on a credit card, one whose limit is rapidly approaching. And this is just wrong.
We already borrow money from countries like China to pay for our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and it would be interesting to know how many Americans believe we should continue borrowing money and saddling future generations with debt to pay for our current actions in Libya.
The subtext to the President's speech concerning Libya tonight was "What if we had done nothing?" But a better question might be, What if helping Libya's interest actually hurts America's interests? What if we are sending our military to places where we might actually be helping the same terrorists we fight in other countries or potential future terrorists?
It's time that we re-examine these policies by once again consulting the Constitution on such matters and the common-sense principles that made this country great. We can no longer afford to spend what we don't have. And we can't afford to address every other nation's problems before we can address our own.
Over the coming days and weeks, Congress will force President Obama to confront these questions. Our brave young men and women have answered the call of duty time and time again over the past decade. Our soldiers deserve, at the very least, that before we send them into a third war that Congress - the People's House - deliberate, debate, and decide whether this war is in our vital national interests.
We will gather information, ask questions, and deliver our best advice about whether we, as the people's representatives, believe we should be at war. Whatever the outcome, we stand square behind our troops, and seek that their mission be clear and true.
Thank you for listening tonight, and God bless the United States of America.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrrV_Txg47Q
Intervening in a civil war in a tribal society in which our government admits we have no vital interests to help people we do not know, simply does not make any sense.
What did you think of Obama's speech? Of Paul's? Which one more reflects your own worldview?
For me personally, this really emphasizes to me that 'change' isn't just a slogan; its an ideology, it's a worldview. It's time to start standing up for smaller government, less foreign entanglements, less debt, less stimulus, less handouts, less, less, less. Obama won't get you there, he's just more of the same... only worse. People like Rand Paul and his father represent real change, beyond what either two major parties have been able to offer during the past 100 years.
Complete Transcript:
The President of the United States often faces unforeseeable dilemmas that demand tough decisions based on reliable intelligence. The recent events in Libya presented President Obama with such a scenario. But how our Commander in Chief chose to handle this new dilemma raises serious questions about his understanding of constitutional checks and balances.
Libyan President Moammar Gadhafi is every bit the madman Ronald Reagan once said he was, but are the rebels adherents to Jeffersonian democracy or Bin Laden's radical jihad?
In then-candidate Obama said that "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."
I agree with candidate Obama. Unfortunately, President Obama has failed to heed his own advice. He has ignored our constitution and engaged us in a military conflict without congressional debate and approval
What imminent threat did Gadhafi or Libya pose to the United States? Obviously, the decision to take military action of this magnitude is something that should not be taken lightly, and should first require determining whether it is in the United States' vital national interest.
Over the weekend, even Defense Secretary Robert Gates admitted that America has no vital interest in Libya.
Our brave men and women in uniform are patriotic defenders of our nation. They are members of the greatest military in the world, and in times of war, I am confident of their willingness and ability to ensure that our vital interests are protected.
But they should not be asked to be nation-builders or the world's policemen. And they should serve in wars authorized and called for by the United States Congress, not the United Nations.
At the moment, there are uprisings taking place across the Middle East. The problem with sending U.S. military to help rebels in Libya or anywhere else is that we are taking sides in a conflict and on behalf of a people whom we know nothing about.
When, or if, there is regime change in Libya, what kind of leadership, exactly, will replace Gadhafi? Who are the Libyan rebels exactly? The Daily Telegraph newspaper in London reported over the weekend that some Libyan rebel leaders now claim they have members of al-Qaida within their ranks and are glad to have them. Why do we have American soldiers, our best and bravest, helping people in Libya who may be the very same people we ask our military to fight in Afghanistan and Iraq?
Intervening in a civil war in a tribal society in which our government admits we have no vital interests to help people we do not know, simply does not make any sense. Libyan society is complicated, and we simply do not know enough about the potential outcomes or leaders to know if this will end up in the interests of the United States, or if we are in fact helping to install a radical Islamic government in the place of a secular dictatorship.
Of even more lasting concern is how our troops were committed to this battle by President Obama.
The Founding Fathers understood the seriousness of war and thus included in our Constitution a provision stating that only Congress can declare war. The decision to wage war should not be taken cavalierly. As Madison wrote:
"The Constitution supposes what the history of all Governments demonstrates, that the executive is the branch of power most interested in war and most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care vested the question of war in the Legislature."
If President Obama had consulted Congress, as our Constitution requires him to do, perhaps we could have debated these questions before hastily involving ourselves in yet another Middle Eastern conflict.
The Constitution doesn't say the president can wage war after he talks to a handful of Congressional leaders.
The Constitution says Congress - all of Congress - is responsible for declaring war.
While the President is the commander of our armed forces, he is not a king. He may involve those forces in military conflict only when authorized by Congress or in response to an imminent threat. Neither was the case here.
We are already in two wars that we are not paying for. We are waging war across the Middle East on a credit card, one whose limit is rapidly approaching. And this is just wrong.
We already borrow money from countries like China to pay for our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and it would be interesting to know how many Americans believe we should continue borrowing money and saddling future generations with debt to pay for our current actions in Libya.
The subtext to the President's speech concerning Libya tonight was "What if we had done nothing?" But a better question might be, What if helping Libya's interest actually hurts America's interests? What if we are sending our military to places where we might actually be helping the same terrorists we fight in other countries or potential future terrorists?
It's time that we re-examine these policies by once again consulting the Constitution on such matters and the common-sense principles that made this country great. We can no longer afford to spend what we don't have. And we can't afford to address every other nation's problems before we can address our own.
Over the coming days and weeks, Congress will force President Obama to confront these questions. Our brave young men and women have answered the call of duty time and time again over the past decade. Our soldiers deserve, at the very least, that before we send them into a third war that Congress - the People's House - deliberate, debate, and decide whether this war is in our vital national interests.
We will gather information, ask questions, and deliver our best advice about whether we, as the people's representatives, believe we should be at war. Whatever the outcome, we stand square behind our troops, and seek that their mission be clear and true.
Thank you for listening tonight, and God bless the United States of America.
Me1000
Sep 12, 04:52 PM
I think he meant his nano, that he owns, is personalized.
Yeah sorry if i want clear... ^ thats what i ment!
;)
Yeah sorry if i want clear... ^ thats what i ment!
;)
BigBeast
Apr 2, 06:45 AM
Adobe flash... HA!
The wizards at Apple can't even make a mobile device that will run that load of crap. I hope that crap-ware never makes it into any IOS based products.
Should read:The wizards at Apple WON'T make a mobile device that will run that load of crap. Continue.
The wizards at Apple can't even make a mobile device that will run that load of crap. I hope that crap-ware never makes it into any IOS based products.
Should read:The wizards at Apple WON'T make a mobile device that will run that load of crap. Continue.
skellener
Sep 12, 02:15 PM
Another thing that will NEVER happen is an Apple DVR. iTV is for use with iTunes downloadable content. Apple will never release a recording device. It's not their model. They would rather you ditch your satellite and cable and go with getting your shows from iTunes - hence the iTV.
VirtualRain
Mar 3, 05:13 PM
Paddling up the Seymour River...
http://chrismccormack.zenfolio.com/img/s3/v23/p644445735-4.jpg
http://chrismccormack.zenfolio.com/img/s3/v23/p644445735-4.jpg
Chupa Chupa
Apr 13, 03:39 PM
If it's shipping in June, even June 30, how can it not be near final form? I mean when a developer tells me s/w is "nowhere near final form" I'm thinking early beta at best. But 2.5 months from release (assume June 30) shouldn't it be in the bug testing phases and everything else locked up?
Would this run on a maxed 13" air ok?
It should except where a plugin or feature is GPU intensive and needs a real video card. That is the real Achilles heel of the 13". (I say that as an owner). Motion will run like molasses though.
Would this run on a maxed 13" air ok?
It should except where a plugin or feature is GPU intensive and needs a real video card. That is the real Achilles heel of the 13". (I say that as an owner). Motion will run like molasses though.
Friscohoya
May 5, 11:02 AM
Nice, but not essential. I usually have the patience to wait until I'm home to install an update. Unless it's an iOS update..
More important to me is over-the-air syncing. That would be a killer!
I just assumed that the two would come hand in hand though I now see why that's not necessarily the case. I agree, OTA syncing is even better but there just isnt any reason to not be able to do both.
More important to me is over-the-air syncing. That would be a killer!
I just assumed that the two would come hand in hand though I now see why that's not necessarily the case. I agree, OTA syncing is even better but there just isnt any reason to not be able to do both.
rezenclowd3
Sep 27, 01:01 PM
I am used to having no ammo from playing Marathon. "Wheres the ammo!"
I honestly do not mind at all. All the enemies drop weapons and ammo when killed, and as said, there are plenty of caches around. One just has to be quick switching from weapon to weapon. It would be nice if enemies ran out of ammo though....
I honestly do not mind at all. All the enemies drop weapons and ammo when killed, and as said, there are plenty of caches around. One just has to be quick switching from weapon to weapon. It would be nice if enemies ran out of ammo though....
Brianstorm91
Jan 11, 04:33 PM
There's an "m" in "there's something in the air", and there's an "m" in "MacBook Pro" therefore it's obviously a new MacBook Pro :D
Isn't it so obvious..
Isn't it so obvious..
nagromme
Oct 15, 03:51 PM
I can't agree with Jobs on this one.
In this era of WTDs (wax-tramsitted diseases), there will be no sharing of my earbuds!
But if the person has a player, Zune or anything, then they also have their OWN earphones :)
In this era of WTDs (wax-tramsitted diseases), there will be no sharing of my earbuds!
But if the person has a player, Zune or anything, then they also have their OWN earphones :)
dsut4392
Apr 11, 05:23 AM
Interesting point, although what you're not factoring in is that the resale value of CS5 is substantial whereas the resale value of the subscription model is ZERO :D
Nor the fact that the only part of that �8000 up-front cost you save is the �1700 cost of the Adobe software. 21% saving is better than nothing, but you would do better to get your business modelling and recruitment right...
Nor the fact that the only part of that �8000 up-front cost you save is the �1700 cost of the Adobe software. 21% saving is better than nothing, but you would do better to get your business modelling and recruitment right...
Manic Mouse
Sep 6, 08:59 AM
And, since it's Merom, this makes the likelihood of seeing a Conroe minitower even better - after all, Apple has to stick the Conroe chip in something, right? ;) :D As it stands now, since Merom is technically the "mobile chip", Apple has 5 mobile solutions (2 mobile MB/MBPs, 3 not-so-mobile iMacs) and a workstation solution (Mac Pro), so where is the desktop solution? :p :cool:
Fingers crossed!
Fingers crossed!
PBF
May 5, 12:13 AM
I really couldn't care less. It's not like we have iOS updates every day. :rolleyes:
Now if there is wireless syncing, then we're talking. :rolleyes:
Now if there is wireless syncing, then we're talking. :rolleyes:
T'hain Esh Kelch
Mar 21, 01:15 PM
Anyone else think they'll probably rename the iPod touch to simply "iPod"? I think it makes sense, considering almost all of their products feature multi-touch technology at this point.
They won't. You wouldn't know if people talked about iPods in general or iPod touches.
They won't. You wouldn't know if people talked about iPods in general or iPod touches.
portishead
Apr 13, 03:56 PM
If it's shipping in June, even June 30, how can it not be near final form? I mean when a developer tells me s/w is "nowhere near final form" I'm thinking early beta at best. But 2.5 months from release (assume June 30) shouldn't it be in the bug testing phases and everything else locked up?
Because the version that was showed last night isn't even the most up-to-date. It has been said that they have already re-worked a lot of things that aren't in the latest version. That was probably just a stable version they got out the door for a preview.
I don't know how much they're going to fit in the next few months, but we'll see.
Because the version that was showed last night isn't even the most up-to-date. It has been said that they have already re-worked a lot of things that aren't in the latest version. That was probably just a stable version they got out the door for a preview.
I don't know how much they're going to fit in the next few months, but we'll see.
OatmealRocks
Apr 14, 04:53 PM
I'm not fooling anyone. I live in California. I know what its like to be price gouged for everything cost of living wise. I am very lucky to be able to afford the lifestyle. I would have no problem paying a 10-15% premium for a product made here, that is supported here, and helps develop my community.
10-15% is not going to happen. There would be an uproar. However I am willing to bet the margin will be reduced by at least 15% which would be catastrophic as a profit driven company. Apple is doing what's best for it's share holders (some of which are in your community).
10-15% is not going to happen. There would be an uproar. However I am willing to bet the margin will be reduced by at least 15% which would be catastrophic as a profit driven company. Apple is doing what's best for it's share holders (some of which are in your community).
1dterbeest
Sep 22, 01:17 PM
The only thing Wal-Mart CAN do is lower
their prices to undercut online distributors
even more. And maybe realize that DVDs
are nicer than downloaded movies.
A lot of the people who shop at wal-mart
don't have high speed internet anyway.
I don't. I'll keep buying my movies from
Blockbuster, BestBuy, and Wal-Mart until
I am able to get them online.
their prices to undercut online distributors
even more. And maybe realize that DVDs
are nicer than downloaded movies.
A lot of the people who shop at wal-mart
don't have high speed internet anyway.
I don't. I'll keep buying my movies from
Blockbuster, BestBuy, and Wal-Mart until
I am able to get them online.
