tdmac
Apr 25, 04:15 PM
I think most people are missing this key bit of info - Location Services was turned off and the database was purged, and it still made a new database with new data...
No one is missing anything here. You as well as the Wall Street Journal are confusing "Location Services" with this database.
Location Services are those that provide data from 3rd party providers based on your location. Your date "IS" passed to them of where you are currently located so that they can provide you results on things in your area. i.e. Movie Schedules, Four Square, etc.
This database "locally" stores your proximity to cell towers and wifi antenna's.
No one is missing anything here. You as well as the Wall Street Journal are confusing "Location Services" with this database.
Location Services are those that provide data from 3rd party providers based on your location. Your date "IS" passed to them of where you are currently located so that they can provide you results on things in your area. i.e. Movie Schedules, Four Square, etc.
This database "locally" stores your proximity to cell towers and wifi antenna's.
wizz0bang
Jul 15, 11:25 AM
I like your line of thinking. You know, what if Apple just released 4 Mac Pro models? Or offered 2 Mac Pro models and 2 iMac Pro models. The bottom two could have Conroe chips and the top two could have 2 x Woodcrest chips. Perhaps have an ever so slight case design difference between the two (i.e. slightly smaller on the low end or charcoal black on the upper end). Because, when you think of it, "prosumers" who already own a display are faced with a difficult buying decision with the current lineup.
That would be a good lineup: two Minis, two iMacs, two Macs, two MacPros. Perhaps then the spread from $1499 for a base model conroe Mac to a $3299 or even $3599 for a premo dual-woodcrest 3GHz MacPro would seem plausible? I really like having a Mac desktop option before stepping up to the MacPro (with a smaller format). Right now the iMac is your only option in a certain range.
I agree with another poster too, having both models silent would be most excellent!
That would be a good lineup: two Minis, two iMacs, two Macs, two MacPros. Perhaps then the spread from $1499 for a base model conroe Mac to a $3299 or even $3599 for a premo dual-woodcrest 3GHz MacPro would seem plausible? I really like having a Mac desktop option before stepping up to the MacPro (with a smaller format). Right now the iMac is your only option in a certain range.
I agree with another poster too, having both models silent would be most excellent!
NoSmokingBandit
Dec 7, 07:22 AM
IC-10 license test is killing me. I can only manage 2nd. I can get into 3rd pretty quick (at the hairpin before the long straight) and then I can't get 2nd until the same turn, and then there is just not enough race left to get past 1st. I can get kind of close to him, but nowhere near close enough to cut him off at the last turn.
I settled for 2nd on that test. Gold isnt worth the aggravation.
I settled for 2nd on that test. Gold isnt worth the aggravation.
satzzz
Aug 19, 05:52 PM
There's allready en new beta of Adobe's Lightroom, Does that one run native under on the intel machines?
Bill McEnaney
Apr 29, 09:40 AM
Yes, the same people who noticed that there was something "fishy" about Obama's short form birth certificate.
For me, the birth certificate issue is a dead issue.
For me, the birth certificate issue is a dead issue.
mac1984user
Apr 27, 08:33 AM
Apple's solution is fine by me. They wouldn't have done anything if there wasn't so much press about it, but I guess that's a good reason (one of the only ones) for the press to exist. Still, they all managed to get it a bit wrong, though. I noticed (like so many others out there), that the map wasn't recording my EXACT location, but just cell towers and wifi spots I may have accessed. The info didn't really bother me. It wasn't like it had me pegged at my local pub - or did it?!?! =)
Kilamite
Apr 12, 03:09 PM
What's the UK time?
3am.
3am.
CFreymarc
Mar 31, 05:59 PM
This is a smart move. It had to happen sooner or later.
John Gruber would eat Steve Job's ***** if he could. His opinion is extremely biased.
Tightening controls? How about Google having final right of refusal toward any mass production Bill of Materials for any Android phone going into production? That will keep the manufacturing accountants from screwing over the developers taking a $0.76 of parts out to save on a run but generate a million man hours of bug fixing in the third party developer community.
John Gruber would eat Steve Job's ***** if he could. His opinion is extremely biased.
Tightening controls? How about Google having final right of refusal toward any mass production Bill of Materials for any Android phone going into production? That will keep the manufacturing accountants from screwing over the developers taking a $0.76 of parts out to save on a run but generate a million man hours of bug fixing in the third party developer community.
andiwm2003
Apr 25, 02:39 PM
While I can't say that I like the idea of private information being recorded without clear consumer knowledge or warning, I have to wonder what exactly is getting 'exploited' here? In two years when you throw your phone out Apple secretly searches your trash, takes it and markets to you based on where you went two years ago? Give me a break. :rolleyes:
again so that you might understand it:
The issue is that the data are stored unencrypted on your iPhone. So everyone can steal your phone and find out where you've been in the last year. If you think that is not an issue then your job is not very important and your private life is very boring.;)
It's not that Apple uses this info. It's about the fact that there is a gaping security hole that Apple did not fix.
again so that you might understand it:
The issue is that the data are stored unencrypted on your iPhone. So everyone can steal your phone and find out where you've been in the last year. If you think that is not an issue then your job is not very important and your private life is very boring.;)
It's not that Apple uses this info. It's about the fact that there is a gaping security hole that Apple did not fix.
4God
Jul 14, 11:07 PM
8 cores?! Wow, maybe one day!
8 cores, yeah you can get that in a jumbled amd setup today.
8 cores, yeah you can get that in a jumbled amd setup today.
epitaphic
Sep 13, 07:59 AM
What I couldn't understand - I couldn't see it explained in the article - why is the dual core Mac Pro (i.e. with current Mac Pro with 2 cores disabled) faster in so many tests than the 4 core Mac Pro.
probably due to latency involved in distributing the load across the two processors. that's the same problem a single Clovertown would have. Only true quads wouldn't suffer from these problems (earliest seems to be Harpertown in don't know if there are any non-MCM Xeons scheduled before then)
probably due to latency involved in distributing the load across the two processors. that's the same problem a single Clovertown would have. Only true quads wouldn't suffer from these problems (earliest seems to be Harpertown in don't know if there are any non-MCM Xeons scheduled before then)
Auax
Apr 12, 10:11 PM
It is said that some important features will be achieved on iOS 5. So i will keep waiting and expecting the magic on iPhone 5.
Tussen69
Aug 6, 09:39 AM
If you look at the banner pictures from WWDC 2006 you can see that the PowerMac / Mac Pro still lookes the same ...
Does this mean that the Mac Pro will look like the PowerMac or that there wont be any release of Mac Pro at the WWDC 2006 ... ?
Does this mean that the Mac Pro will look like the PowerMac or that there wont be any release of Mac Pro at the WWDC 2006 ... ?
MacBoobsPro
Jul 20, 08:55 AM
I agree, increasing the number of cores can't be the only solution on long term. In my opinion it's time to rethink CPUs: Single, maybe dual core, high processing* power with extremly low power consumption, much lower than we have nowadays.
* Whatever that exactly means, I don't know.
Is having more cores more energy efficient than having one big fat ass 24Ghz processor? Maybe thats a factor in the increasing core count.
* Whatever that exactly means, I don't know.
Is having more cores more energy efficient than having one big fat ass 24Ghz processor? Maybe thats a factor in the increasing core count.
kdarling
Apr 19, 01:49 PM
One of the three basics that must be proven in order to win a trade dress case, is the likelihood of confusion.
In other words, would someone think they're buying one thing but really getting another, such as might happen with shoes or pills or whatever.
Does anyone think that a normal person would actually confuse a Samsung Galaxy (especially with that huge "Samsung" on it) with an Apple iPhone when they're buying it?
I mean, is Apple going to claim that they're losing sales because the Galaxy is so close to the iPhone that people can't tell the difference? If so, that sure doesn't say much for the iPhone. Or it says a lot for the Galaxy.
In other words, would someone think they're buying one thing but really getting another, such as might happen with shoes or pills or whatever.
Does anyone think that a normal person would actually confuse a Samsung Galaxy (especially with that huge "Samsung" on it) with an Apple iPhone when they're buying it?
I mean, is Apple going to claim that they're losing sales because the Galaxy is so close to the iPhone that people can't tell the difference? If so, that sure doesn't say much for the iPhone. Or it says a lot for the Galaxy.
Hellhammer
Apr 6, 11:11 AM
I am shocked that anyone finds this as a positive.
So you all want a drop from 1.86/2.13 to 1.4GHz CPUs in your 13" MBA? That is a 30% drop.
Then you want another drop of approaching 50% in graphics performance? Remember these IGPs clock in much lower than the STD voltage SB used in 13" MBP.
I find this completely backwards from Apple's current position on both CPU and graphics, and I don't think anyone would end up with a faster or better 13" MBA than the current generation. Apple would certainly have to bring back the backlit keyboard and introduce Thunderbolt to sucker anyone into buying such inferior junk! I would recommend people buy the current generation on clearance rather than lose performance everywhere like this. If this is the chip Apple uses in the 13" MBA, prepare for a big drop in capabilities!
I am still in shock anyone finds this a positive? Have you all read the clock speed? The facts about the chip and IGP in ultra low voltage variants?
I'm pretty sure you are aware that Apple would use LV CPU in 13", not ULV. That bumps us to 2.3GHz plus Turbo. You have said this yourself too and I already covered the reason in my other post.
This is just a MR article and surprisingly, they don't have much idea about the TDPs. Hopefully they will correct their article so people won't live in confusion.
So you all want a drop from 1.86/2.13 to 1.4GHz CPUs in your 13" MBA? That is a 30% drop.
Then you want another drop of approaching 50% in graphics performance? Remember these IGPs clock in much lower than the STD voltage SB used in 13" MBP.
I find this completely backwards from Apple's current position on both CPU and graphics, and I don't think anyone would end up with a faster or better 13" MBA than the current generation. Apple would certainly have to bring back the backlit keyboard and introduce Thunderbolt to sucker anyone into buying such inferior junk! I would recommend people buy the current generation on clearance rather than lose performance everywhere like this. If this is the chip Apple uses in the 13" MBA, prepare for a big drop in capabilities!
I am still in shock anyone finds this a positive? Have you all read the clock speed? The facts about the chip and IGP in ultra low voltage variants?
I'm pretty sure you are aware that Apple would use LV CPU in 13", not ULV. That bumps us to 2.3GHz plus Turbo. You have said this yourself too and I already covered the reason in my other post.
This is just a MR article and surprisingly, they don't have much idea about the TDPs. Hopefully they will correct their article so people won't live in confusion.
sierra oscar
Sep 19, 08:53 AM
It's not quite 0700 Cupertino time - so maybe? :)
NoSmokingBandit
Aug 17, 09:30 PM
What you scale the difficulty up? On NFS:Shift, I started on easy A.I, quickly moved to normal, and am now doing most of my races on hard A.I. My car settings for traction and control and such is normal.
I havent played it in a while, but i recall setting traction control to standard, AI to the hardest, and everything else to the hard/realistic settings. I was racing with my DFGT wheel and it all just felt really easy. I was safely taking turns faster than i would ever attempt in GT4.
I havent played it in a while, but i recall setting traction control to standard, AI to the hardest, and everything else to the hard/realistic settings. I was racing with my DFGT wheel and it all just felt really easy. I was safely taking turns faster than i would ever attempt in GT4.
alent1234
Mar 23, 10:04 AM
If you ever used one of the LG phones or the numerous Japanese keitai's of that time then you'd know, that even though they were cutting edge for the time, they were still nowhere near being 'smartphones'.
Terrible UI with endless menu's, confusing icons, and new features randomly bolted on.
No matter how much the petty minded haters want to see it, the truth is that Apple made a quantum leap forward with the iPhone, and some people ought to be a little less bitter and more thankful for it.
the big thing with the original iphone was a good web browser. the 3G was the first one that was really worth buying.
apple had so much problems developing the iphone that just like the ipad they put a weak device out to market for version 1 and spent another year finishing it
Terrible UI with endless menu's, confusing icons, and new features randomly bolted on.
No matter how much the petty minded haters want to see it, the truth is that Apple made a quantum leap forward with the iPhone, and some people ought to be a little less bitter and more thankful for it.
the big thing with the original iphone was a good web browser. the 3G was the first one that was really worth buying.
apple had so much problems developing the iphone that just like the ipad they put a weak device out to market for version 1 and spent another year finishing it
SPUY767
Nov 28, 10:12 PM
Actually, they do. They also got paid on every blank tape sold when cassettes were big. I think it is crazy for everyone to think that the music industry is greedy when it getting squeezed out of all of their revenue streams. So, Apple makes hundreds of millions off of their back on the itunes site, and a billion off of iPod sales, and they cannot share in the wealth?
It doesn't cost the consumer any more, why wouldn't you want the people who actually make the music you are listening to get compensated?
This debate is stale. People want something for nothing.
Just so you know, flame bait is almost always ignored. So don't bother.
It doesn't cost the consumer any more, why wouldn't you want the people who actually make the music you are listening to get compensated?
This debate is stale. People want something for nothing.
Just so you know, flame bait is almost always ignored. So don't bother.
deputy_doofy
Mar 31, 04:06 PM
And the Apple haters do yet another 180...
1. Macs
1995 to 2007: Don't use a Mac. Noone uses Macs.
2007 to Present: Don't use a Mac. Everyone uses a Mac.
2. Apps
1995 to 2/22/2011: Don't use Apple. There is no software and they can't do anything.
2/22 to Present: Apps? Who needs Apps as long as you have a robust UI?
3. Open
2007 to Today: Apple is a walled garden that only stupid lemmings use.
Today going forward: Controlling the OS is necessary and good for the consumer.
Honestly... this just needs repeating to drive the point home. Well said and 100000% accurate.
1. Macs
1995 to 2007: Don't use a Mac. Noone uses Macs.
2007 to Present: Don't use a Mac. Everyone uses a Mac.
2. Apps
1995 to 2/22/2011: Don't use Apple. There is no software and they can't do anything.
2/22 to Present: Apps? Who needs Apps as long as you have a robust UI?
3. Open
2007 to Today: Apple is a walled garden that only stupid lemmings use.
Today going forward: Controlling the OS is necessary and good for the consumer.
Honestly... this just needs repeating to drive the point home. Well said and 100000% accurate.
Agathon
Aug 7, 11:45 PM
The whining seems misplaced. I imagine that the main reason for the "top secret" stuff has to do with media exposure. I'm guessing that Apple wants to wait until the release of Vista, so that comparisons get made right as Microsoft's information campaign ramps up. That would be good tactical business strategy.
The alternative is that Apple doesn't have anything to show, or at least nothing that works, and just pretended. Well, I think that we can discount this. Improved Spotlight was mentioned, but not demoed IIRC, so it obviously isn't quite up to speed yet.
Time Machine: the attempts to say this was done before with VMS, System Restore or Shadow Copy are pathetic, and those who made the comparison should be ashamed of themselves. Of course it isn't a completely new idea: it's been something that people have wanted to do for years. As far as I can see, Apple is the company that first demonstrated a practical version of this feature that an ordinary person could use. I predict that Microsoft's implementation will be a complicated mess that regular users find opaque and will not use (just like System Restore is).
And quit complaining about the Star Trek thing. It's obvious that they made it look over the top flashy so that there would be absolutely no confusion on the user's part.
But there are some people who will whine about everything....
The alternative is that Apple doesn't have anything to show, or at least nothing that works, and just pretended. Well, I think that we can discount this. Improved Spotlight was mentioned, but not demoed IIRC, so it obviously isn't quite up to speed yet.
Time Machine: the attempts to say this was done before with VMS, System Restore or Shadow Copy are pathetic, and those who made the comparison should be ashamed of themselves. Of course it isn't a completely new idea: it's been something that people have wanted to do for years. As far as I can see, Apple is the company that first demonstrated a practical version of this feature that an ordinary person could use. I predict that Microsoft's implementation will be a complicated mess that regular users find opaque and will not use (just like System Restore is).
And quit complaining about the Star Trek thing. It's obvious that they made it look over the top flashy so that there would be absolutely no confusion on the user's part.
But there are some people who will whine about everything....
whatever
Jul 20, 03:27 PM
Apple doesn't get to operate in a bubble anymore - in Intel Land you have to compete. If they executed your plan, Dell would just go and make a "workstation" with dual Kentsfield and Apple will get crushed in Photoshop benchmarks. No way they're going to allow that.
Neither Apple or Dell operate in bubbles. They both realize that these chips belong in real servers and also requires an OS that can support such chips.
In 2007 we will finally get to see Apple force their way more into Sun's market.
Neither Apple or Dell operate in bubbles. They both realize that these chips belong in real servers and also requires an OS that can support such chips.
In 2007 we will finally get to see Apple force their way more into Sun's market.
iAlan
Nov 28, 08:16 PM
I haven't read all the post as yet, got to around post #50 but my sentiments pretty much reflect those of most posters.
However, if there is evidence that a bulk of the royalty (and I mean more than 50%) will go to artists then I can see justification in the process (but it should not be a flat $1 per device as the cost/profit of devices varies). But at the same time, Apple should get a higher share of the 99c per track as I believe the money they get per song pretty much only covers there management of the stored data and hosting on iTunes with very little profit per song - and this is understandable as Apple can leverage the iTunes store to drive iPod sales.
If the record companies want a profitable piece of Apple�s pie (no pun intended) then Apple should be entitled to a profitable piece of the 99c download.
Same logic me thinks�
However, if there is evidence that a bulk of the royalty (and I mean more than 50%) will go to artists then I can see justification in the process (but it should not be a flat $1 per device as the cost/profit of devices varies). But at the same time, Apple should get a higher share of the 99c per track as I believe the money they get per song pretty much only covers there management of the stored data and hosting on iTunes with very little profit per song - and this is understandable as Apple can leverage the iTunes store to drive iPod sales.
If the record companies want a profitable piece of Apple�s pie (no pun intended) then Apple should be entitled to a profitable piece of the 99c download.
Same logic me thinks�
No comments:
Post a Comment