NAG
Mar 31, 03:14 PM
The real Android bait-and-switch is calling the platform "open" to consumers. Sure, there are a few "Google Experience" devices that have not been mutilated by handset makers, but even those often have closed hardware. The way I see it, Google uses this ruse of openness to get geek support. Geeks then advocate their platform, which is a great form of marketing.
The reality is that any Android handset with a locked bootloader or no root access from the factory is just about as closed as any iOS device (or BlackBerry, WebOS, Windows, etc. device). The open vs. closed = Android vs. iOS argument is ridiculous, because it focuses on the part of the platform (underlying source code) that matters the least to almost all users.
Actually, I think the open shtick was probably mostly to convince handset makers to abandon Windows Mobile (not that they needed to do much with Microsoft finding new and inventive ways to shoot themselves in the foot). It's open and free meant that the handset makers were not beholden to Redmond, which everyone was chafing under. Just look at HP if you want a good example of former Redmond partners fleeing as fast as they can (which isn't very fast but still).
The handset makers only recently realized, apparently, that Google is not their white knight and Google is just trying to use them as pawns to make everyone dependent on Google advertising. Does this come as any surprise after handset makers started toying with things like removing Google search for Bing or removing the Android marketplace entirely?
Google wanting greater control so they can maintain their business plan isn't evil, of course since only Apple is evil. :rolleyes: Seriously though, the issue here is that Google's true plan (or loyalties, I guess) are being laid bare and they are not what they've been claiming (although if you were paying attention you would have known they were lying from the start). Did they plan to do this from the start? I doubt it. Android has always been reactionary � they tried to fix it with the various Google phones that failed and then tried to decouple components of the OS so they could be updated via the marketplace and not as reliant on the handset makers/carriers. It still doesn't excuse Google for blatantly lying about their motives.
The reality is that any Android handset with a locked bootloader or no root access from the factory is just about as closed as any iOS device (or BlackBerry, WebOS, Windows, etc. device). The open vs. closed = Android vs. iOS argument is ridiculous, because it focuses on the part of the platform (underlying source code) that matters the least to almost all users.
Actually, I think the open shtick was probably mostly to convince handset makers to abandon Windows Mobile (not that they needed to do much with Microsoft finding new and inventive ways to shoot themselves in the foot). It's open and free meant that the handset makers were not beholden to Redmond, which everyone was chafing under. Just look at HP if you want a good example of former Redmond partners fleeing as fast as they can (which isn't very fast but still).
The handset makers only recently realized, apparently, that Google is not their white knight and Google is just trying to use them as pawns to make everyone dependent on Google advertising. Does this come as any surprise after handset makers started toying with things like removing Google search for Bing or removing the Android marketplace entirely?
Google wanting greater control so they can maintain their business plan isn't evil, of course since only Apple is evil. :rolleyes: Seriously though, the issue here is that Google's true plan (or loyalties, I guess) are being laid bare and they are not what they've been claiming (although if you were paying attention you would have known they were lying from the start). Did they plan to do this from the start? I doubt it. Android has always been reactionary � they tried to fix it with the various Google phones that failed and then tried to decouple components of the OS so they could be updated via the marketplace and not as reliant on the handset makers/carriers. It still doesn't excuse Google for blatantly lying about their motives.
Cameront9
Aug 7, 06:35 PM
I am not hearing impaired, but I often watch TV and movies with the closed captioning on. I cannot really say what about it makes it more enjoyable to me--no one has ever understood why I do it, maybe it has to do with how I process information (I do have trouble listening in lecture classes, maybe a learning disability etc.), but my point is to say that I am also interested in getting closed captioning on iTunes shows.
I wrote to Apple on the feedback part of their web-site about this. I was wondering if you might know better what the law is about closed captioning. I always assumed it was required for network television shows. Is it not for network shows that appear online?
Anyhow, it's functionality I would definitely like to see.
Online is a grey area because it's new...
I'm not completely familiar with Closed Captioning laws. I believe all new TVs are required to have a Closed-Captioning decoder, and I think that all Network shows (and maybe cable-based, too) have to be captioned.
A quick Google gives this:
http://www.captions.org/caplaw.cfm
Which explains in more detail...
Regardless, I have seen a number of hearing-impaired users comment on the issue before. It would be so simple to implement, after all...
I wrote to Apple on the feedback part of their web-site about this. I was wondering if you might know better what the law is about closed captioning. I always assumed it was required for network television shows. Is it not for network shows that appear online?
Anyhow, it's functionality I would definitely like to see.
Online is a grey area because it's new...
I'm not completely familiar with Closed Captioning laws. I believe all new TVs are required to have a Closed-Captioning decoder, and I think that all Network shows (and maybe cable-based, too) have to be captioned.
A quick Google gives this:
http://www.captions.org/caplaw.cfm
Which explains in more detail...
Regardless, I have seen a number of hearing-impaired users comment on the issue before. It would be so simple to implement, after all...
boncellis
Apr 6, 02:11 PM
I think it's mostly about the price. I, for one, can't see myself not buying the original (iPad) when the competition is the same price. When there are more commoditized components then Android tablets will have a more enticing pricepoint and consumers will be more likely to buy them.
Multimedia
Aug 27, 02:12 AM
I still pity those guys expecting "Major" MBP performance gain by moving to Merom without Santa Rosa. They are as ignorant as those people expecting G5s with their two pound heat sinks to go in powerbooks. I'm just looking forward to see Conroe iMac and better battery life for MBPs. And iPod update off course ;)I don't give a rat's A** about Santa Rosa. What I do give a Rat's A** about is that Easy Access HD Bay. The ability to have multiple 160 GB HDs standing by for different field purposes can make for revolutionary work flow procedures.
basesloaded190
Apr 6, 11:03 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.
You obviously don't know how powerful SB actually is compared to C2D
So you all want a drop from 1.86/2.13 to 1.4GHz CPUs in your 13" MBA? That is a 30% drop.
You obviously don't know how powerful SB actually is compared to C2D
grue
Apr 11, 08:42 PM
Oh, and this is a more minor gripe, btu they need to pull their heads out of their asses and fix their volume licensing program, it's rubbish.
netdog
Aug 11, 02:55 PM
I wonder what carrier they'll go with?
I think the question is more likely to be this...
What providers will meet Steve's qualifications to offer the Apple phone bundled with their service?
One of the primary factors may very well be that the provider is not allowed to cripple the phone (as some love to do).
If there is enough demand for the phone, network providers will have to meet his terms.
I think the question is more likely to be this...
What providers will meet Steve's qualifications to offer the Apple phone bundled with their service?
One of the primary factors may very well be that the provider is not allowed to cripple the phone (as some love to do).
If there is enough demand for the phone, network providers will have to meet his terms.
NY Guitarist
Apr 5, 08:14 PM
Interestingly this contradicts the information my friend on the design team hinted towards. I know the release is imminent so time will tell.
So are you saying that the apps will be broken up and sold individually?
So are you saying that the apps will be broken up and sold individually?
Evangelion
Sep 14, 01:14 AM
Didn't you get the memo, Hyperthreading was a joke.
At worst, it slowed performance down by few percent. At best, it gave substantial boost in performance. And multitasking-tests clearly benefitted from HyperThreading. That said, Intel dropped it, because it apparently consumed too much power. But we might see HT in some future Intel-CPU's at some point, you never know.
HT as such is not a bad idea. Sun UltraSparc T1 uses such a scheme extensively.
At worst, it slowed performance down by few percent. At best, it gave substantial boost in performance. And multitasking-tests clearly benefitted from HyperThreading. That said, Intel dropped it, because it apparently consumed too much power. But we might see HT in some future Intel-CPU's at some point, you never know.
HT as such is not a bad idea. Sun UltraSparc T1 uses such a scheme extensively.
jiggie2g
Jul 15, 01:08 PM
The only reason I see Apple going all Woodcrest is to justify their high markups , while insulting you Mac Loyalist on price they also offer you less performance for your money.
Look here at the current woody pricing at Newegg
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.asp?Submit=ENE&N=50001157+2010340343+1050922423&Subcategory=343&description=&srchInDesc=&minPrice=&maxPrice=
So apple is going to charge you guys $1799 for a Desktop with a 2.0ghz CPU , when everyone else will charge $1199 for a Conroe E6600 2.4ghz based desktop.
This is not looking good apple.
Look here at the current woody pricing at Newegg
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.asp?Submit=ENE&N=50001157+2010340343+1050922423&Subcategory=343&description=&srchInDesc=&minPrice=&maxPrice=
So apple is going to charge you guys $1799 for a Desktop with a 2.0ghz CPU , when everyone else will charge $1199 for a Conroe E6600 2.4ghz based desktop.
This is not looking good apple.
zac4mac
Aug 11, 02:14 PM
I'm on my 3rd cell phone now. First was a panasonic brick and was CDMA. It totally sucked. Switched to GSM 2 years ago but initially Cingular sent the wrong phone - an LG flip. Reception was as bad as the CDMA but roaming was much better. After 3 weeks, I got the phone I ordered, a t637 and I love it. I have NO desire to go back to CDMA and I won't lose the tight BT link I have to my Macs with the t637, but it's getting old and due replacement.
I'm watching and waiting...
Z
I'm watching and waiting...
Z
ChrisA
Sep 13, 10:54 AM
Arrays of cheap RAM on a PCIe card?
The RAM companies don't seem interested in making wodges of slow cheap hi-cap ram, only in bumping up the speed and upping the capacity. For the last 10 years, a stick of decent RAM has always been about �100/ $100 no matter what the capacity / flavour of the moment is.
Even slow RAM is still orders of magnitude faster than a HD, hence my point. There's various historical and technical factors as to why we have the current situation.
I've also looked at RAID implementations (I run a RAID5) but each RAID level has its own problems.
I've recently seen that single-user RAID3 might be one way forward for the desktop, but don't really know enough about it yet.
The reason for the RAM improvoments in speed and size are that RAM (not CPU) is the main bottle neck in preformance. A CPU can only execute instructions as fast as they can be pulled out of RAM. Now you go and put multiple cores inthe box and the demand on RAM doubles.
As for RAID. I think the way forward is Sun's "ZFS" file system. There was talk of that moving into Mac OSX and we know it is being ported to BSD Unix and Linux. Basically ZFS makes the RAID layer just go away
Read more here...
http://www.sun.com/2004-0914/feature/index.html
Sun has released this as Open Source. so it will get ported around to other OSes. I hear Sun's Dtrace is already in Leopard
The RAM companies don't seem interested in making wodges of slow cheap hi-cap ram, only in bumping up the speed and upping the capacity. For the last 10 years, a stick of decent RAM has always been about �100/ $100 no matter what the capacity / flavour of the moment is.
Even slow RAM is still orders of magnitude faster than a HD, hence my point. There's various historical and technical factors as to why we have the current situation.
I've also looked at RAID implementations (I run a RAID5) but each RAID level has its own problems.
I've recently seen that single-user RAID3 might be one way forward for the desktop, but don't really know enough about it yet.
The reason for the RAM improvoments in speed and size are that RAM (not CPU) is the main bottle neck in preformance. A CPU can only execute instructions as fast as they can be pulled out of RAM. Now you go and put multiple cores inthe box and the demand on RAM doubles.
As for RAID. I think the way forward is Sun's "ZFS" file system. There was talk of that moving into Mac OSX and we know it is being ported to BSD Unix and Linux. Basically ZFS makes the RAID layer just go away
Read more here...
http://www.sun.com/2004-0914/feature/index.html
Sun has released this as Open Source. so it will get ported around to other OSes. I hear Sun's Dtrace is already in Leopard
bamerican
Apr 25, 03:19 PM
"Federal Marshals need a warrant. . . . . "
Duh, the police always have to jump over a higher bar . . . I, personally, can come into your home, take your bag of cocaine, and go give it to the police and it will be admissible, even though the cops need a warrant. (I can be sued for breaking and entering, etc., but the drugs are still admissible.
You are absolutely right. This lawyer is a complete idiot. The reason that federal marshals or any other goverment actor needs a warrant is because they are government actors. The Fourth Amendment protects people from the government, not private parties. Purely private searches are not protected by the Fourth Amendment.
Apple is not a government actor and, unless they are acting in coordination or on behalf of the government, under the Fourth Amendment they don't require a warrant for a damn thing.
Did this guy miss the day they taught law in law school?
Duh, the police always have to jump over a higher bar . . . I, personally, can come into your home, take your bag of cocaine, and go give it to the police and it will be admissible, even though the cops need a warrant. (I can be sued for breaking and entering, etc., but the drugs are still admissible.
You are absolutely right. This lawyer is a complete idiot. The reason that federal marshals or any other goverment actor needs a warrant is because they are government actors. The Fourth Amendment protects people from the government, not private parties. Purely private searches are not protected by the Fourth Amendment.
Apple is not a government actor and, unless they are acting in coordination or on behalf of the government, under the Fourth Amendment they don't require a warrant for a damn thing.
Did this guy miss the day they taught law in law school?
Mister Snitch
Mar 31, 02:43 PM
By the end of this thread, it'll be impossible to decipher what the original story was about.
As opposed to YOUR post, which is all about the original story. Right.
As opposed to YOUR post, which is all about the original story. Right.
citizenzen
Mar 22, 11:00 AM
Oh yeah... and here's a fun little nugget for those who like to tout Obama's coalition:
I'm confused. :confused:
What point is 5P trying to make here?
Is the fact that one list contains more countries by count make it superior to the second? Is that the only way to judge a coalition, by count?
That seems a little too simplistic to me.
For instance, I added up these two lists (after removing duplicates) according to how much the countries spend on their military ...
• Coalition Countries - Iraq - 2003 ~ 152 billion
• Coalition - Libya - 2011 ~ 179 billion
I guess it's just how you want to look at it. :cool:
I'm confused. :confused:
What point is 5P trying to make here?
Is the fact that one list contains more countries by count make it superior to the second? Is that the only way to judge a coalition, by count?
That seems a little too simplistic to me.
For instance, I added up these two lists (after removing duplicates) according to how much the countries spend on their military ...
• Coalition Countries - Iraq - 2003 ~ 152 billion
• Coalition - Libya - 2011 ~ 179 billion
I guess it's just how you want to look at it. :cool:
Dark K
Jun 22, 03:24 PM
Nevermind my previous post, I just pass by my local Radioshack, and I think that every Radioshack will be getting the iPhones, why? I do not live in the states, I live in Puerto Rico, and by that being said, one of the sellers told me that they already receive the phones, just like Walmart, he even told me that the store has 8 (6 16GB black and 2 32GB black) iPhone 4s. Now is just a matter of time and wait.
pkson
Apr 19, 11:37 PM
lol... thanks! Dunno how I missed that.
--
Silly thought for the evening: Apple should be glad that Samsung is copying their old 3GS instead of the new iPhone 4.
After all, only one company at a time should be paying style homage to old Leicas, right?
I remember Steve mentioning that at the iP4 keynote. ... (I'm not sure if you were being sarcastic, or just mentioning something that popped up in your mind.. whatever it is, I'll just take it at face value..) Yeah, I don't think Samsung can do something like that yet.. They haven't done much work with aluminum.. Plus, I doubt they'll even remotely copy anything by Apple in the future.
--
Silly thought for the evening: Apple should be glad that Samsung is copying their old 3GS instead of the new iPhone 4.
After all, only one company at a time should be paying style homage to old Leicas, right?
I remember Steve mentioning that at the iP4 keynote. ... (I'm not sure if you were being sarcastic, or just mentioning something that popped up in your mind.. whatever it is, I'll just take it at face value..) Yeah, I don't think Samsung can do something like that yet.. They haven't done much work with aluminum.. Plus, I doubt they'll even remotely copy anything by Apple in the future.
SeanM
Mar 26, 02:04 AM
I think Apple will probably charge $79 for Lion and distribute it via the Mac App Store (at least as an option).
Same price as the iLife suite and smack dab in the middle of Leopard ($129) and Snow Leopard's pricing ($29). That'd be the sweet spot IMO.
Same price as the iLife suite and smack dab in the middle of Leopard ($129) and Snow Leopard's pricing ($29). That'd be the sweet spot IMO.
Peace
Jul 27, 10:10 AM
Very, very true. You usually only get half the things you expect... the real gem is when you get something you didn't expect.
Like the 30th Anniversary Mac ;)
Like the 30th Anniversary Mac ;)
Nuck81
Dec 9, 10:02 AM
Anyone else have trouble leveling up your B-Spec driver? Mine really sucks and can't even finish the FF race in whatever car he drives.
Mine is a level 21.
It's worth doing as it gives you some amazing cars, like a Pagani Zonda R, and a Toyota 7 race car.
You have to keep your guy level headed, especially at the beginning. After he levels up a bit, you can generally let him be and he'll pull out the victory...
Mine is a level 21.
It's worth doing as it gives you some amazing cars, like a Pagani Zonda R, and a Toyota 7 race car.
You have to keep your guy level headed, especially at the beginning. After he levels up a bit, you can generally let him be and he'll pull out the victory...
rdowns
Mar 24, 12:43 PM
The right pro-war machine is all but gone. The policies haven't changed, but the party color of the president has.
Fixed that for you.
Fixed that for you.
BornAgainMac
Aug 11, 01:54 PM
Mac Mobile should be the name of the phone. Remember that Steve said he wants Mac in the name. Mac Mobile will be perfect. Complete with Pocket Photo, Pocket Movie, Pocket Tunes, and Pocket iChat.
jalman11
Apr 25, 01:41 PM
there is fine print somewhere about this...
I'm presuming that this data is not transmitted back to apple, therefore, should we also be upset that our own apple iphones and our own itunes backups "secretly" log our text messages and call logs... the horror.
I'm presuming that this data is not transmitted back to apple, therefore, should we also be upset that our own apple iphones and our own itunes backups "secretly" log our text messages and call logs... the horror.
NightFox
Apr 19, 01:37 PM
why? iphones outselling itouches by so much makes sense to me.
Just really basing it on my own experience - I'm the only one of my close friends/family to own an iPhone, but I can count 5 iPod Touches in that same group. Also thought their would be a lot of iPod Touches owned by children rather than iPhones.
Just really basing it on my own experience - I'm the only one of my close friends/family to own an iPhone, but I can count 5 iPod Touches in that same group. Also thought their would be a lot of iPod Touches owned by children rather than iPhones.
No comments:
Post a Comment