Snowy_River
Jul 25, 01:17 PM
Snowy,
I do think hayesk is on the right track. While the idea of a touchless experience is neat, try it right now. pick up your iPod and make movements over the surface as if it would be touchless. If you don't have an iPod, pick up something else approximately that size. Assume that the "field" where it senses your fingers is going to be less than a centimeter above the surface.
What happened?
If you were like me, you still occasionally brushed or accidentally touched the surface anyway, especially making circular scrollwheel movements. You didn't? I applaud your superior fine motor skills. Now try that same excersise while driving. Or jogging. Bet it was harder.
Heck, even just holding the thing in your hand or pulling it out of your pocket will get fingerprints on it and be touched. Touching the surface will be unavoidable. But what Apple can do with this technology is give it a thicker, more substantial, more scratch-resistant, possibly more smudge resistant surface on which the user can touch and interact with the UI.
Well, while I'll admit that some touching is unavoidable, I could easily hover my finger over the controls on my iPod or on the track pad on my PB. I only glanced off the surface once in a mock navigation of the iPod to get to a playlist and start playing. How much better is that than having tones of sweep marks and finger prints from scrolling and tapping?
I do think hayesk is on the right track. While the idea of a touchless experience is neat, try it right now. pick up your iPod and make movements over the surface as if it would be touchless. If you don't have an iPod, pick up something else approximately that size. Assume that the "field" where it senses your fingers is going to be less than a centimeter above the surface.
What happened?
If you were like me, you still occasionally brushed or accidentally touched the surface anyway, especially making circular scrollwheel movements. You didn't? I applaud your superior fine motor skills. Now try that same excersise while driving. Or jogging. Bet it was harder.
Heck, even just holding the thing in your hand or pulling it out of your pocket will get fingerprints on it and be touched. Touching the surface will be unavoidable. But what Apple can do with this technology is give it a thicker, more substantial, more scratch-resistant, possibly more smudge resistant surface on which the user can touch and interact with the UI.
Well, while I'll admit that some touching is unavoidable, I could easily hover my finger over the controls on my iPod or on the track pad on my PB. I only glanced off the surface once in a mock navigation of the iPod to get to a playlist and start playing. How much better is that than having tones of sweep marks and finger prints from scrolling and tapping?
CrackedButter
Oct 24, 09:01 AM
I wish they offered the 120GB HDD i dont need 160, but 100 is too little, 120 is just right + would save me nearly �60
I already have 2 160GB FW400 Drives so I'm more interested in speed than internal capacity.
However you might down the road decide you want the 160GB (needs change) and wished the opposite!
I already have 2 160GB FW400 Drives so I'm more interested in speed than internal capacity.
However you might down the road decide you want the 160GB (needs change) and wished the opposite!
n00bst3r
Oct 18, 05:00 PM
Maybe if they weren't making a grand on each MBP..
dfinecy
Apr 22, 04:19 PM
I don't see them enlarging the screen by a mere .2" it seems illogical to me. Plus the mock up really sucks lol surely Apple would come up with something much more appealing then this. My money is on the iPhone 5 to be nearly identical to the iPhone 4 except with better insides :)
zen
Apr 18, 01:32 AM
So how many people can't update their iPad 1s? My wife's 16GB wifi model updated with no problem. My 64GB wifi model still says "device incompatible with this build". No amount of reseting or restoring will change that.
saving107
Apr 14, 02:14 PM
Can anyone comment on the animation performance of the Iphone 4?
It hasn't been fixed.
It hasn't been fixed.
Dbrown
Apr 30, 09:02 PM
Well if it's a platform war, Android is getting seriously spanked by iOS. The iOS platform is holding its own in smartphones and still growing in market share and in dedicated media players, portable media players, and tablets, it isn't even a contest. The iPad, Apple TV, iPod Touch and all the rest of the products on the iOS platform are seriously spanking the crap out of the Android alternatives.
That's one of the reasons why the big developers concentrate more on the iOS platform than Android.
Now did that register or are you just in denial?
The only people who lump in tablets and PMPs into the platform are apple lovers who are in denial. Everyone else separates them by device. Smartphones are compared to smartphones. Tablets to tablets, etc.
That's one of the reasons why the big developers concentrate more on the iOS platform than Android.
Now did that register or are you just in denial?
The only people who lump in tablets and PMPs into the platform are apple lovers who are in denial. Everyone else separates them by device. Smartphones are compared to smartphones. Tablets to tablets, etc.
ChazUK
Apr 22, 04:43 AM
This settles it:
http://www.emptyhouse.net/fileshuttle/samsungphone_21e9.jpg
That settles nothing as it is inaccurate.
http://www.emptyhouse.net/fileshuttle/samsungphone_21e9.jpg
That settles nothing as it is inaccurate.
mikeschmeee
Apr 12, 07:41 PM
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5027/5614415395_b4488929f1.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikeschmeee/5614415395/)
Rodimus Prime
Apr 30, 11:00 AM
Yes, and that matters to consumers....how?
Well it matters in it explains why AAC is only really in higher end devices. Lower end stuff is not going to support it because that is one of many ways to cut cost.
Boils down to this
MP3 plays in everything. AAC is hit or miss.
Well it matters in it explains why AAC is only really in higher end devices. Lower end stuff is not going to support it because that is one of many ways to cut cost.
Boils down to this
MP3 plays in everything. AAC is hit or miss.
Macsterguy
Apr 25, 12:39 PM
Do you guys think there will there be another refresh with Lion pre-loaded this summer? Im looking to purchase my first mac but wanted to wait until Lion drops.
You don't have to wait for Lion. It is easy to install os upgrades later... Buy next week!
You don't have to wait for Lion. It is easy to install os upgrades later... Buy next week!
jellomizer
Oct 23, 12:28 PM
If Vista can run soley in a virtuallized environment without breaking the EULA, but not be installed on a machine that also is using it in a virtualized way. How does this affect anyone-(Mac or PC)?
If I own a PC and I want to run Vista, why would I want to also run Vista, on the same machine, in a virtual environment?
For Mac users, why would we want to install Vista-(via BootCamp) and then also use it under virtualization?
What situation is there that you would want to run the same OS on the same box, one natively installed and one in virtualization?:confused:
Very confused about how this affects anyone?
Well it is an issue on who you want incharge. For example If I am doing some web development I may want to virtualize Vista to insture the page renders correctly in IE 7. Then switch back to my Mac Enviroment. But there are other times say I want to play a windows game I would want Windows to have full control. So I want to run it nativly.
I think Microsoft wants to make sure you are not putting the same copy of windows on different virtual devices so you can have 10 Versions of windows from the same license. (ALthough it is on the same box)
If I own a PC and I want to run Vista, why would I want to also run Vista, on the same machine, in a virtual environment?
For Mac users, why would we want to install Vista-(via BootCamp) and then also use it under virtualization?
What situation is there that you would want to run the same OS on the same box, one natively installed and one in virtualization?:confused:
Very confused about how this affects anyone?
Well it is an issue on who you want incharge. For example If I am doing some web development I may want to virtualize Vista to insture the page renders correctly in IE 7. Then switch back to my Mac Enviroment. But there are other times say I want to play a windows game I would want Windows to have full control. So I want to run it nativly.
I think Microsoft wants to make sure you are not putting the same copy of windows on different virtual devices so you can have 10 Versions of windows from the same license. (ALthough it is on the same box)
ten-oak-druid
Apr 13, 02:14 PM
This is a false rumor. Absolutely no way will this happen.
First of all Google failed with their TV.
Second of all, it is much better to have the components separate. You can more easily pass the audio to a home entertainment system for surround sound. With a component built into the TV, you have cables going back in the other direction to the receiver. If audio and video both take the same path there is less change of them getting out of sync.
First of all Google failed with their TV.
Second of all, it is much better to have the components separate. You can more easily pass the audio to a home entertainment system for surround sound. With a component built into the TV, you have cables going back in the other direction to the receiver. If audio and video both take the same path there is less change of them getting out of sync.
DylanLikesPorn
Sep 15, 07:39 AM
http://www.fotocentreplus.co.uk/shop/images/Tokina_11_16mm_Canon_Fit.jpg
tokina 11-16
tokina 11-16
vincenz
Apr 12, 09:12 AM
Breaking news, iPhone 5 to come out within the next 10 years :rolleyes:
*LTD*
Apr 21, 11:09 PM
Even more entertaining is the fact that Apple is so arrogant they fail to realize how stupid they look.
Suing their biggest vendor.
It doesn't get any more stupid than that.
Do you honestly think Apple don't know what they're doing? They're the most successful company in tech today. And they got there by doing virtually the opposite of what everyone else is. Seems they've got the technology game (including the litigation game) all figured out.
Samsung doesn't have consumers on their side. Apple does. Samsung doesn't make the hottest products in tech. Apple does. Samsung make internals. That's a mater of logistics.
Whoever has the consumers attracts business. And consumers are tripping over each other to get Apple gear.
Besides, these phone patents have nothing to do with supply agreements, nor will they have any effect on supply agreements, so you can stop *wishing* that it will.
Even if you want to court insanity and assume one will affect the other, Apple has an insane amount of leverage, rendering Samsung as just another supplier among several. In terms of meeting Apple's capacity needs, Apple always has a plan B. It's safe to assume they've got one now. They're pretty untouchable when it comes to planning ahead. Sometimes they can't anticipate just how insane the demand is for their products, but a lot of companies would love to have that problem.
Suing their biggest vendor.
It doesn't get any more stupid than that.
Do you honestly think Apple don't know what they're doing? They're the most successful company in tech today. And they got there by doing virtually the opposite of what everyone else is. Seems they've got the technology game (including the litigation game) all figured out.
Samsung doesn't have consumers on their side. Apple does. Samsung doesn't make the hottest products in tech. Apple does. Samsung make internals. That's a mater of logistics.
Whoever has the consumers attracts business. And consumers are tripping over each other to get Apple gear.
Besides, these phone patents have nothing to do with supply agreements, nor will they have any effect on supply agreements, so you can stop *wishing* that it will.
Even if you want to court insanity and assume one will affect the other, Apple has an insane amount of leverage, rendering Samsung as just another supplier among several. In terms of meeting Apple's capacity needs, Apple always has a plan B. It's safe to assume they've got one now. They're pretty untouchable when it comes to planning ahead. Sometimes they can't anticipate just how insane the demand is for their products, but a lot of companies would love to have that problem.
Joe The Dragon
Apr 11, 09:05 PM
I wonder how Thunderbolt will interact with the graphics card.
I expect that the video signals (DisplayPort) go from the graphics card back through the PCI bus to the TB chip and then out through the TB ports to the monitor. So when you upgrade the graphics card, it works (thinking of computers with replaceable PCI cards here, e.g. a Mac Pro with TB). But this will likely require the support of the graphics card manufacturers, so we have cards that are "compatible" with TB...?
Presumably one can still use the graphics cards' own video-out ports too.
Guess we'll see.
well TB seems to be add on to DP port. So VIDEO may work with a added in card and a voodoo 1 like loop back cable. But you don't TB tied to on board video and what about AMD / sever / upper mid - high end intel boards / other boards that don't have chipset / cpu based video. Some sever boards have on board pci based video.
I expect that the video signals (DisplayPort) go from the graphics card back through the PCI bus to the TB chip and then out through the TB ports to the monitor. So when you upgrade the graphics card, it works (thinking of computers with replaceable PCI cards here, e.g. a Mac Pro with TB). But this will likely require the support of the graphics card manufacturers, so we have cards that are "compatible" with TB...?
Presumably one can still use the graphics cards' own video-out ports too.
Guess we'll see.
well TB seems to be add on to DP port. So VIDEO may work with a added in card and a voodoo 1 like loop back cable. But you don't TB tied to on board video and what about AMD / sever / upper mid - high end intel boards / other boards that don't have chipset / cpu based video. Some sever boards have on board pci based video.
MacRuler
Apr 14, 08:31 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
now we pretty much know iphone 5 wont be out until spetember/october. the earliest
now we pretty much know iphone 5 wont be out until spetember/october. the earliest
macaddict3
May 4, 02:57 AM
i would rather have a better feature and higher quality phone than just squeezing into the usual deadline. If apple thinks it is necessary to push back the release than I think there is always some reason behind it.
Adidas Addict
Apr 28, 04:24 PM
Phone cases are for wimps anyway :D
I still think it's the same size after staring at the photos. Light/white objects always look bigger than they are compared to black. Just look at a while aluminium mountain bike frame compared to a black one, they always look fatter.
I still think it's the same size after staring at the photos. Light/white objects always look bigger than they are compared to black. Just look at a while aluminium mountain bike frame compared to a black one, they always look fatter.
tigres
Apr 14, 12:31 PM
Just let us know if Safari --> Youtube links are fixed.
tired of the force quit after the white pages.
tired of the force quit after the white pages.
mattwolfmatt
Apr 13, 10:00 PM
If you ain't white, you ain't right!
Seriously, why bother?
Seriously, why bother?
alhedges
Apr 28, 01:48 PM
There is no way that Apple's model can compete on absolute sales to the multi-device approach of their competition. But that's only a tiny part of the picture.
Why not?
What's more they are likely to hold on to the upper end of the demographic, just as they do in personal computers. Their customers will be high earners who will buy music and apps and other content. They'll be invested in the ecosystem in a way which Android users will not be.
I'm really skeptical of this point - I'm not really sure that Apple has the upper end of the demographic now when it comes to phones. Everyone who buys a smartphone is paying ~$2,000 over the life of their contract for service, and the phones are roughly comparable in price to each other, particularly when you factor in the total cost of ownership. Meanwhile, the vast majority of apps cost less than $5, with most being 99c. (I would also suspect that people in their 20's making less than $30,000 per year would buy more apps than lawyers in their 50's making $300,000 per year.)
Why not?
What's more they are likely to hold on to the upper end of the demographic, just as they do in personal computers. Their customers will be high earners who will buy music and apps and other content. They'll be invested in the ecosystem in a way which Android users will not be.
I'm really skeptical of this point - I'm not really sure that Apple has the upper end of the demographic now when it comes to phones. Everyone who buys a smartphone is paying ~$2,000 over the life of their contract for service, and the phones are roughly comparable in price to each other, particularly when you factor in the total cost of ownership. Meanwhile, the vast majority of apps cost less than $5, with most being 99c. (I would also suspect that people in their 20's making less than $30,000 per year would buy more apps than lawyers in their 50's making $300,000 per year.)
MikeDTyke
Mar 29, 08:12 AM
well if its $129 then people would just pay $99 for the mac developer program and get it $30 cheaper
$79 or less
You don't get final versions of the software they release in the dev program.
The Gold master will not get software updates post release date.
$79 or less
You don't get final versions of the software they release in the dev program.
The Gold master will not get software updates post release date.
No comments:
Post a Comment