mdntcallr
Nov 7, 08:43 AM
...finally...
Apple has dropped the ball here. Now that most laptops ship with the same chips, Apple can't claim the "Mhz Myth" or anything like that. They will have to keep up to speed, no pun intended.
dude, the operating system is better. it isnt just the cpu.
Apple has dropped the ball here. Now that most laptops ship with the same chips, Apple can't claim the "Mhz Myth" or anything like that. They will have to keep up to speed, no pun intended.
dude, the operating system is better. it isnt just the cpu.
thiagorariz
Apr 12, 01:37 PM
Here in Brazil we have high taxes. Taxes are high and public services are of poor quality. The cost of labor is quite high, due to all the labor bureaucracy that punishes both employers and employees. The purpose of mounting the iPads here in Brazil is that they would not be able to pay some import taxes and enjoy some tax incentives that the Brazilian government grants to companies that assemble their products in national territory. Furthermore, we live in a fake democracy, in which the State is only concerned with lining their own pockets, leaving the needs of the Brazilian people in the last plan. That since 1500.
Slurpy2k8
Mar 23, 04:54 PM
While for me, $500 is a "pretty big wad of cash to throw down", there's more to it than strictly looking at the dollar figure. EG. Do you have a kid or kids that might benefit from being able to use the new iPad you're about to purchase? Do you have legitimate uses for it that go along with EARNING more money, or maybe even the ability to write the whole purchase off as a tax deduction the next year? When you spend $20 on some beer or a few bucks on some food, it's a consumable you use once and throw some trash away, and then you have nothing to show for it.
One thing I know about myself is, I'm very hesitant to spend much on "instant gratification" type of entertainment. I practically never spend money on tickets for sporting events or concerts, and maybe buy a movie ticket once a year. I've often skipped summer vacations completely because my employer didn't want me to take time off when they had important projects going on, and I just opted to get paid for the days instead. I don't even have cable or satellite TV at home, because I hated watching $60 or more per month just vanish into thin air, with nothing concrete to show for it later. So when I do spend my money? It tends to be on bigger-ticket items I know I'll get a lot of use out of for years down the road.
So frankly, in my relationships, "respect" is just as much about my partner respecting my ability to make sensible purchasing decisions and NOT demand I consult with her first, simply because it's something a lot more expensive than a fast food order.
Great post, completely agree, and am also inline with your mentality about spending money. The same people who ask me why the hell I would spent $1700 on a laptop when I can get one for $700 (I have a Macbook Pro, which I use several hours EVERY SINGLE DAY, will last years, and which I work and make money from) are the same people who would spend that difference in a month on stupid ****, eating out, and alcohol, with nothing to show for it. I have no problem spending more on long term purchases to get a better product, or something I'm passionate about which will bring me pleasure for a long time.
One thing I know about myself is, I'm very hesitant to spend much on "instant gratification" type of entertainment. I practically never spend money on tickets for sporting events or concerts, and maybe buy a movie ticket once a year. I've often skipped summer vacations completely because my employer didn't want me to take time off when they had important projects going on, and I just opted to get paid for the days instead. I don't even have cable or satellite TV at home, because I hated watching $60 or more per month just vanish into thin air, with nothing concrete to show for it later. So when I do spend my money? It tends to be on bigger-ticket items I know I'll get a lot of use out of for years down the road.
So frankly, in my relationships, "respect" is just as much about my partner respecting my ability to make sensible purchasing decisions and NOT demand I consult with her first, simply because it's something a lot more expensive than a fast food order.
Great post, completely agree, and am also inline with your mentality about spending money. The same people who ask me why the hell I would spent $1700 on a laptop when I can get one for $700 (I have a Macbook Pro, which I use several hours EVERY SINGLE DAY, will last years, and which I work and make money from) are the same people who would spend that difference in a month on stupid ****, eating out, and alcohol, with nothing to show for it. I have no problem spending more on long term purchases to get a better product, or something I'm passionate about which will bring me pleasure for a long time.
Dr. Scott
Mar 21, 06:29 PM
His wife must be where the 1 'negative' came from. iPad - 1, wife - 0
mentholiptus
Apr 13, 04:51 PM
My FCS3 install spans 7 DVDs and weighs in around 50gb. FCPX as a stand alone app will be ~300mb, but they'll have to offer it on physical media if they plan on including all the extras that ship with the current suite. I'm sure it'll be $999 full, or $299 upgrade for the full studio. At least I hope so. Here I stand, cash in hand!
I really can't wait to see what happens with Logic.
I really can't wait to see what happens with Logic.
rever3nce
Apr 10, 07:59 PM
love how everyone hates radioshack. i personally work for them and we are way more helpful than any other company is . nothing is wrong with radioshack. it maybe a smaller retail store but that means u get better and more personal customer service. good luck trying to find help at best buy or walmart in a huge department. all they are gonna tell you is " i dont work in this department sorry"
MythicFrost
May 5, 07:54 AM
And there would end my continuing support for the iPad. Not gunna happen.
twoodcc
Aug 29, 10:14 AM
wow.....as if microsoft needs the money....of well, i'm not buying it
nsbio
Aug 24, 08:15 PM
I think that the webapp is working now, as my previous SN didn't work but now it does
All of a sudden my serial # started to work too. And no, I am not quoting eva01 on purpose repeatedly ;).
All of a sudden my serial # started to work too. And no, I am not quoting eva01 on purpose repeatedly ;).
Dr Kevorkian94
May 4, 09:54 PM
3D doesn't give me headaches but I'm sure if apple included it in the products, the 3d wouldn't give u headaches, or just simply u can turn it off. I don't think it would be that infused into the the iPad, think about it everything about the UI would have to change u can't make everything 3D it wouldent be that great. So I think if apple were to include it only cretin aspects of the IOS would be 3D. Also i don't think they would include a 3D screen without having the 3D cameras, for photos, videos and maby even (if possible) 3D FaceTime. Apple knows what it's doing, if they include it and u don't like it u don't buy it or just turn the 3D off.
bpaluzzi
Apr 11, 06:15 AM
Pirates are douchebags.
chiamon
Aug 7, 11:48 PM
http://www.apple.com/server/macosx/leopard/podcastproducer.html
Notice the phone besides the ipod and itunes? This page is about podcasts and what is a phone doing there alongside ipod and itunes? Does this spell something
about what we all wanted from apple: the iphone? Just my 2 cents. Leopard rox!
Notice the phone besides the ipod and itunes? This page is about podcasts and what is a phone doing there alongside ipod and itunes? Does this spell something
about what we all wanted from apple: the iphone? Just my 2 cents. Leopard rox!
RichardI
Jul 7, 08:22 AM
I couldn't care less about touchy feely or iOS or whatever. If they do this, it better not raise the base price of an iMac! Better yet, make it available as an extra charge option for those who want it.
jackc
Nov 3, 02:50 AM
No question, Jobs gave a good answer there. But let's face it, if it was Apple that was talking about wireless and Microsoft said you should just share earbuds, you know what the reaction would be.
RTee
Dec 1, 12:05 AM
I don't know. The biggest seller in the UK, even now, is Sir Cliff Richard and he was knighted before Sir Paul McCartney.
So?
So?
huntson
Apr 13, 07:46 PM
As for 'professionals' getting pissy:
I don't think any of them care too much about the new features as much as they care about the speed updates. That's the biggest benefit for them.
The 'quick' editing features are useful for some 'pro' edits, definitely useful for a pro-sumer.
My best friend is an editor in a production house in Hollywood and his concern was that they didn't talk about tape workflow, video in/out cards, 3rd party support or XML-based export - among other things.
Just the concern is that they re-built the app and added a lot of GUI and 'smart' features but they didn't say anything about the dirty nuts & bolts.
So - it's an area of concern.
If Apple did what they did with iMove - re-built it from the ground up and removed features (most of which were re-added in the next version)
Well that would be a concern as the 'new' version wouldn't have support for their existing workflows.
(not workflows like "we like to do things this way" more workflows like "because of how this was shot or because we need to export to this specific tape deck" workflows that you can't really mess with)
It's mundane stuff to 'fans' and 'prosumers' but critical for higher end production houses.
A lot of people (me included) were pretty annoyed when Quicktime X came out with fewer features than QT7 . . .
As for the other reason editors might be grumpy:
Some of their 'work' will be partially replaced by smart features.
So they might worry that their exec sees this and gets rid of their assistant because "the software can do it!" which isn't necessarily the case.
Professionals get grumpy when all of a sudden software allows people to do things that used to be their 'trick' exclusively.
Old designers complain about Creative Suite, photographers complain about Photoshop/Lightroom/Aperture, music producers complain about Pro Tools and now editors will complain about Final Cut.
Speaking of Quicktime 7 - know anything that adds those features back?
I don't think any of them care too much about the new features as much as they care about the speed updates. That's the biggest benefit for them.
The 'quick' editing features are useful for some 'pro' edits, definitely useful for a pro-sumer.
My best friend is an editor in a production house in Hollywood and his concern was that they didn't talk about tape workflow, video in/out cards, 3rd party support or XML-based export - among other things.
Just the concern is that they re-built the app and added a lot of GUI and 'smart' features but they didn't say anything about the dirty nuts & bolts.
So - it's an area of concern.
If Apple did what they did with iMove - re-built it from the ground up and removed features (most of which were re-added in the next version)
Well that would be a concern as the 'new' version wouldn't have support for their existing workflows.
(not workflows like "we like to do things this way" more workflows like "because of how this was shot or because we need to export to this specific tape deck" workflows that you can't really mess with)
It's mundane stuff to 'fans' and 'prosumers' but critical for higher end production houses.
A lot of people (me included) were pretty annoyed when Quicktime X came out with fewer features than QT7 . . .
As for the other reason editors might be grumpy:
Some of their 'work' will be partially replaced by smart features.
So they might worry that their exec sees this and gets rid of their assistant because "the software can do it!" which isn't necessarily the case.
Professionals get grumpy when all of a sudden software allows people to do things that used to be their 'trick' exclusively.
Old designers complain about Creative Suite, photographers complain about Photoshop/Lightroom/Aperture, music producers complain about Pro Tools and now editors will complain about Final Cut.
Speaking of Quicktime 7 - know anything that adds those features back?
Amazing Iceman
Mar 21, 02:25 PM
Ahh. . . . women. Can't live with them, and yet they're everywhere!
There's more men than women in the world, so that should earn us more respect. :mad:
There's more men than women in the world, so that should earn us more respect. :mad:
berkleeboy210
Sep 4, 11:23 AM
Was the one more thing at the iPod event last October the TV shows?
If so, the one more thing this year could be the Movies.
If so, the one more thing this year could be the Movies.
morespce54
Aug 29, 01:20 PM
I think you're also forgetting that the current version of OSX is included with every Mac.
I agree but it's still not a "retail" version of OS X...
I agree but it's still not a "retail" version of OS X...
ilovethisgame
Mar 28, 07:37 PM
I just called two of my local Radio Shack's here in NYC and both said that I would be REQUIRED to purchase AppleCare AND a case if I wanted to buy an iPad 2 tomorrow morning. That is ******** and hopefully Apple won't allow it.
bbotte
Nov 12, 02:26 PM
It has always been dumb only 1 person at Facebook works on the iPhone app.
rotlex
May 5, 07:21 AM
Not quite sure why anyone thinks this is a big deal, or would even want it. 3G or Wifi. I mean, do you need an OS update so badly you can't wait until you can just plug it into a computer and have it done in a few minutes? :confused:
Not being sarcastic, just think it is kind of a totally useless "feature". Now wireless sync on the other hand is something that would be nice for daily sync, backup etc.
Not being sarcastic, just think it is kind of a totally useless "feature". Now wireless sync on the other hand is something that would be nice for daily sync, backup etc.
TheNerdyNurse
Mar 23, 03:23 PM
Eh, you misunderstood me. The main point I was making is that the wife should not be able to prevent such a purchase IF THEY CAN AFFORD IT. In many cases, money itself is not an issue in such a purchase, as the wife would not blink twice in spending that amount on something SHE wants. My point was that sometimes they refuse things simply because they dont see it benefitting THEM- and that is something selfish, and shows a lack of respect. Of course if the guy is blowing $$ on an iPad when they're having trouble putting food on the table, thats an issue. My post wasnt centered on these cases. It made the assumption that it could comfortably be afforded, but which the wife doesnt see the value in it for herself, which is the sole reason of the refusal or the demand that it be returned. And Ive seen this on many, many occasions. I know this guy that brings in 6 figures a yr, yes his wife (who brings in nothing) controls the bank account. The guy has no balls, his wife dictates the purchases, buys whatever the hell she pleases, and gets upset when he spends on anything without consulting her. She doesnt let him buy **** he wants, the cost of which is a drop in the bucket compared to the income he makes, simply because SHE doesnt see the value in it. But like I said, the guy has no balls and takes it, while she spends thousands on shoes, etc without needing to consult him.But hey, some people love that ****. Sometimes you need to do things that give you individual pleasure in a marriage, not always 'pleasure as a unit'.
Just don't forget that the concept of selfishness goes both ways.
Its not always the wife is trying to be controlling and wants things only for herself. Its often that the wife is trying to plan for a furture, as someone else mentioned. I just think that is should be a give and take, and honestly, if my husband came home after spending $500 on anything, without consulting me, I'd be fairly upset. Unless he spent like $500 on a suitcase that had $100k in it... well I think i'd get over it. But now, that ain't never happening.
Its not about asking permission, it is about making decisions together that effect your overall well being. $500 is alot of money to alot of people. And if $500 isn't alot, then no, you wouldn't have to ask. But just because you can still put food on the table, even if you buy that ipad, that is still not a good reason to not discuss the purchase with your significant other. It may not be taking food out of your mouth today, but it could be used for something more productive in the future. Your wife/husband may already be thinking along those lines... which is why you should discuss a $500 purchase with them.
But this is just my humble opinion. Not saying it is appropriate for everyone, but this is the respect I think I deserve in my marriage.
And just for further insight, I am the sole breadwinner in my house, and it still took me 4 months, multiple discussions with my husband (in which he always encouraged me to buy it), and the ability to justify it as a learning tool for my son in order to buy my iPad... and food stayed on my table the whole time.
:)
Just don't forget that the concept of selfishness goes both ways.
Its not always the wife is trying to be controlling and wants things only for herself. Its often that the wife is trying to plan for a furture, as someone else mentioned. I just think that is should be a give and take, and honestly, if my husband came home after spending $500 on anything, without consulting me, I'd be fairly upset. Unless he spent like $500 on a suitcase that had $100k in it... well I think i'd get over it. But now, that ain't never happening.
Its not about asking permission, it is about making decisions together that effect your overall well being. $500 is alot of money to alot of people. And if $500 isn't alot, then no, you wouldn't have to ask. But just because you can still put food on the table, even if you buy that ipad, that is still not a good reason to not discuss the purchase with your significant other. It may not be taking food out of your mouth today, but it could be used for something more productive in the future. Your wife/husband may already be thinking along those lines... which is why you should discuss a $500 purchase with them.
But this is just my humble opinion. Not saying it is appropriate for everyone, but this is the respect I think I deserve in my marriage.
And just for further insight, I am the sole breadwinner in my house, and it still took me 4 months, multiple discussions with my husband (in which he always encouraged me to buy it), and the ability to justify it as a learning tool for my son in order to buy my iPad... and food stayed on my table the whole time.
:)
Blue Velvet
Mar 29, 01:28 PM
Tapped digs up the transcript from the second presidential debate:
BROKAW: Senator Obama, let me ask you if -- let's see if we can establish tonight the Obama doctrine and the McCain doctrine for the use of United States combat forces in situations where there's a humanitarian crisis, but it does not affect our national security.
Take the Congo, where 4.5 million people have died since 1998, or take Rwanda in the earlier dreadful days, or Somalia.
What is the Obama doctrine for use of force that the United States would send when we don't have national security issues at stake?
OBAMA: Well, we may not always have national security issues at stake, but we have moral issues at stake.
If we could have intervened effectively in the Holocaust, who among us would say that we had a moral obligation not to go in?
If we could've stopped Rwanda, surely, if we had the ability, that would be something that we would have to strongly consider and act.
So when genocide is happening, when ethnic cleansing is happening somewhere around the world and we stand idly by, that diminishes us.
OBAMA: And so I do believe that we have to consider it as part of our interests, our national interests, in intervening where possible.
But understand that there's a lot of cruelty around the world. We're not going to be able to be everywhere all the time. That's why it's so important for us to be able to work in concert with our allies.
Let's take the example of Darfur just for a moment. Right now there's a peacekeeping force that has been set up and we have African Union troops in Darfur to stop a genocide that has killed hundreds of thousands of people.
We could be providing logistical support, setting up a no-fly zone at relatively little cost to us, but we can only do it if we can help mobilize the international community and lead. And that's what I intend to do when I'm president.
http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/debates/transcripts/second-presidential-debate.html
My emphasis. No one can say he's not acting consistently with this statement, made live in front of approx 50-60 million people, just weeks before everyone went to the polls.
BROKAW: Senator Obama, let me ask you if -- let's see if we can establish tonight the Obama doctrine and the McCain doctrine for the use of United States combat forces in situations where there's a humanitarian crisis, but it does not affect our national security.
Take the Congo, where 4.5 million people have died since 1998, or take Rwanda in the earlier dreadful days, or Somalia.
What is the Obama doctrine for use of force that the United States would send when we don't have national security issues at stake?
OBAMA: Well, we may not always have national security issues at stake, but we have moral issues at stake.
If we could have intervened effectively in the Holocaust, who among us would say that we had a moral obligation not to go in?
If we could've stopped Rwanda, surely, if we had the ability, that would be something that we would have to strongly consider and act.
So when genocide is happening, when ethnic cleansing is happening somewhere around the world and we stand idly by, that diminishes us.
OBAMA: And so I do believe that we have to consider it as part of our interests, our national interests, in intervening where possible.
But understand that there's a lot of cruelty around the world. We're not going to be able to be everywhere all the time. That's why it's so important for us to be able to work in concert with our allies.
Let's take the example of Darfur just for a moment. Right now there's a peacekeeping force that has been set up and we have African Union troops in Darfur to stop a genocide that has killed hundreds of thousands of people.
We could be providing logistical support, setting up a no-fly zone at relatively little cost to us, but we can only do it if we can help mobilize the international community and lead. And that's what I intend to do when I'm president.
http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/debates/transcripts/second-presidential-debate.html
My emphasis. No one can say he's not acting consistently with this statement, made live in front of approx 50-60 million people, just weeks before everyone went to the polls.
