geordieny
May 6, 05:50 AM
Haha fun fun processors!! Aren't intel trying to up the power efficiency of their processors in the near future?
Wonder if they're trying to keep a hold of Apple, as that is the biggest issue for Apple with the current range of processors.
Wonder if they're trying to keep a hold of Apple, as that is the biggest issue for Apple with the current range of processors.
fkhan3
Mar 26, 10:26 PM
ipad 3, ugh im running out of money lol
haha...i doubt it though, iPad 2 just came out. I think hardware is pretty solid, it should run iOS 5 without any problems
haha...i doubt it though, iPad 2 just came out. I think hardware is pretty solid, it should run iOS 5 without any problems
ddrueckhammer
Jul 30, 05:57 PM
I hope Apple goes with their own new network.
It would be extremely difficult for them to start their own new network. Since they have billions in the bank, I wouldn't doubt that they could build it, but I doubt that the FCC would provide them a license. There may be some loopholes in FCC regulations allowing this if they provided data services as well, such as presence information (think instant messanger only on a cell where you would know in advance if the person you are going to call is available) or Voip/VoWiFi services... More likely, I could see them being an "MVNO" Mobile Virtual Network Operator like Disney or ESPN who basically resell Sprint service...I see becoming a mobile provider as being a distraction from their primary business goals and even being an MVNO is more trouble than it is worth. They need to get one of the major cell providers to support their phone for it to be a success. Unfortunately, the iPhone goes against the strategic interests of most of these companies...
It would be extremely difficult for them to start their own new network. Since they have billions in the bank, I wouldn't doubt that they could build it, but I doubt that the FCC would provide them a license. There may be some loopholes in FCC regulations allowing this if they provided data services as well, such as presence information (think instant messanger only on a cell where you would know in advance if the person you are going to call is available) or Voip/VoWiFi services... More likely, I could see them being an "MVNO" Mobile Virtual Network Operator like Disney or ESPN who basically resell Sprint service...I see becoming a mobile provider as being a distraction from their primary business goals and even being an MVNO is more trouble than it is worth. They need to get one of the major cell providers to support their phone for it to be a success. Unfortunately, the iPhone goes against the strategic interests of most of these companies...
marksman
Apr 7, 03:25 PM
Yes, the war just started and things are heating up. I would think the next few years will result in a tablet OS distribution that looks like this:
iOS - 35%
Android - 40%
WebOS - 20%
RIM - 5%
Apple - 35%
HP - 20%
RIM - 5%
Samsung - 15%
Moto - 10%
LG - 10%
HTC - 5%
Maybe Microsoft will wedge their way in, maybe the percentages will be shifted around a little. But the growth of the tablet market will stabilize or at least stop growing at the rapid pace that it currently enjoys.
The point I'm making is that the hot market only seems to be lasting 4 to 5 years. 10 years ago, MP3 players was the hot market. 5 years ago, smartphones was the hot market. This year, it's tablets. 5 years from now ... who knows, but it won't be tablets.
Don't apply the phone dynamic to Tablets. Android is not likely to take a lead in tablet market share for a long time if forever.
Every single time a customer goes to buy a tablet they will have the choice to buy an iPad. The only way that changes is if the wireless companies are able to give away cheap android tablets with data plan contracts. Otherwise, it is going to be very difficult for the commodity android market to overtake Apple.
Every store they go to, an iPad will be there next to it, and since Apple took such an aggressive price stance from the beginning, it is going to be hard for anyone to take that position away from them, especially a mish mash of opposing companies relying on a free OS by another party.
iOS - 35%
Android - 40%
WebOS - 20%
RIM - 5%
Apple - 35%
HP - 20%
RIM - 5%
Samsung - 15%
Moto - 10%
LG - 10%
HTC - 5%
Maybe Microsoft will wedge their way in, maybe the percentages will be shifted around a little. But the growth of the tablet market will stabilize or at least stop growing at the rapid pace that it currently enjoys.
The point I'm making is that the hot market only seems to be lasting 4 to 5 years. 10 years ago, MP3 players was the hot market. 5 years ago, smartphones was the hot market. This year, it's tablets. 5 years from now ... who knows, but it won't be tablets.
Don't apply the phone dynamic to Tablets. Android is not likely to take a lead in tablet market share for a long time if forever.
Every single time a customer goes to buy a tablet they will have the choice to buy an iPad. The only way that changes is if the wireless companies are able to give away cheap android tablets with data plan contracts. Otherwise, it is going to be very difficult for the commodity android market to overtake Apple.
Every store they go to, an iPad will be there next to it, and since Apple took such an aggressive price stance from the beginning, it is going to be hard for anyone to take that position away from them, especially a mish mash of opposing companies relying on a free OS by another party.
Funkymonk
Apr 5, 06:03 PM
still being nazis as usual...
42streetsdown
May 6, 01:48 AM
This seems unlikely. The PPC to Intel switch was a result of Apple not being impressed by both IBM and Motorola's lack of interest in continuing the advances in the PowerPC architecture. Intel's current architecture and future planned architectures are still of great interest to apple and consumers. There isn't enough motivation (unless some huge new breakthrough in ARM tech is in the works.)
The PPC-Intel transition was confusing for many consumers and a pain for developers. I don't think Apple is likely to put us through it again.
The PPC-Intel transition was confusing for many consumers and a pain for developers. I don't think Apple is likely to put us through it again.
Mac'nCheese
May 2, 06:55 PM
I remember in elementary school, learning about the metric system since we were all going to switch to it. That never happened. I wonder why....
asdf542
Mar 30, 10:38 PM
I'd like for you to explain how iOS implementations as a UI are actually useful to the desktop OS?
- Keep in mind that drawing characters on the Trackpad is already in Snow Leopard; Auto Save/Restore like I said is just Time Machine in a different direction, Mission Control is a Task Manager for Expose (I feel its the WRONG direction really; this is not a classic smartphone), and Lion Server seems to be more a "home server" with features stripped or missing.
Many things are STILL not known and until we all try them out in full production use means we ALL have a mindset that is not up to par of what Apple believes can benefit us all.
Either way we have another 10 more years with OS X; or the technologies it offers - Steve Jobs OS X Introduction.
Application Launcher - Useful for organizing apps
Versions - Useful for those who don't leave an external HDD plugged in at all times such as laptop users.
Resume - Useful when you need to restart your Mac.
Auto-save - Self explanatory.
Mission Control - Useful because you can view EVERYTHING on your Mac at a quick glance your windows, spaces, full screen apps, dashboard, etc.
Lion Server - Server functionality that wasn't there before unless you bought a server capable Mac.
Air Drop - Useful for quick file sharing.
Full screen apps - Useful when you are only doing one thing on your Mac or when you are using an app that uses a lot of real estate.
Want me to explain any more features for you?
- Keep in mind that drawing characters on the Trackpad is already in Snow Leopard; Auto Save/Restore like I said is just Time Machine in a different direction, Mission Control is a Task Manager for Expose (I feel its the WRONG direction really; this is not a classic smartphone), and Lion Server seems to be more a "home server" with features stripped or missing.
Many things are STILL not known and until we all try them out in full production use means we ALL have a mindset that is not up to par of what Apple believes can benefit us all.
Either way we have another 10 more years with OS X; or the technologies it offers - Steve Jobs OS X Introduction.
Application Launcher - Useful for organizing apps
Versions - Useful for those who don't leave an external HDD plugged in at all times such as laptop users.
Resume - Useful when you need to restart your Mac.
Auto-save - Self explanatory.
Mission Control - Useful because you can view EVERYTHING on your Mac at a quick glance your windows, spaces, full screen apps, dashboard, etc.
Lion Server - Server functionality that wasn't there before unless you bought a server capable Mac.
Air Drop - Useful for quick file sharing.
Full screen apps - Useful when you are only doing one thing on your Mac or when you are using an app that uses a lot of real estate.
Want me to explain any more features for you?
fyre57lp
Nov 3, 10:01 AM
Yes, Since the gps/speaker are connected via bluetooth, they work independently from the tom tom app. Even google maps is faster.
BigheadEdd
Aug 11, 09:54 AM
I can see them updating the MBP for definate. As the merom chips have just been released, and so apple has enough time to build stock and ship them at paris.
However, I can't see them doing the rumored case re-design, as the 'Pro' line, is meant to match right? and the Mac Pro looks exactly like the old one, apart from the dual drives, so I don't think they'll change the MBPs design just yet.
Damn all this waiting :( I want one now!!!
However, I can't see them doing the rumored case re-design, as the 'Pro' line, is meant to match right? and the Mac Pro looks exactly like the old one, apart from the dual drives, so I don't think they'll change the MBPs design just yet.
Damn all this waiting :( I want one now!!!
maclaptop
Apr 20, 07:00 AM
The nice thing this time around is that everyone seems to have such low expectations that Apple can only meet or exceed them :D
Very well said :)
Very well said :)
Full of Win
Apr 18, 04:02 PM
Where is the logical place for a dock? At the bottom (no brainer--do you want to turn your device sideways or upside down?). Grid is the most efficient layout. How else are you going to lay them out?
Delete is a little similar, but it is one of the easiest ways to delete something. You can't exactly right click and going to the menu to delete apps seems innefficient.
Palm and Microsoft put their icons in a grid pattern that Apple COPIED with iOS. I don't see them (or their patent holders in the case of Palm) suing. Apple is acting like a baby because they can see what it coming (more open ecosystems, less expensive options) and they know it will mean a loss of power and money.
Perhaps you need to actually look at an iPhone 3GS and a Galaxy Tab sometime.
http://www.coated.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Samsung-Galaxy-Tab-back.jpg
http://phonerpt.com/wp-content/uploads/iphone-3g-white-live-picture.jpg
OMG, Samsung put a white back on the back of their tablet. Cats sleeping with dogs! Your so-called proof is a joke.
Delete is a little similar, but it is one of the easiest ways to delete something. You can't exactly right click and going to the menu to delete apps seems innefficient.
Palm and Microsoft put their icons in a grid pattern that Apple COPIED with iOS. I don't see them (or their patent holders in the case of Palm) suing. Apple is acting like a baby because they can see what it coming (more open ecosystems, less expensive options) and they know it will mean a loss of power and money.
Perhaps you need to actually look at an iPhone 3GS and a Galaxy Tab sometime.
http://www.coated.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Samsung-Galaxy-Tab-back.jpg
http://phonerpt.com/wp-content/uploads/iphone-3g-white-live-picture.jpg
OMG, Samsung put a white back on the back of their tablet. Cats sleeping with dogs! Your so-called proof is a joke.
Sky Blue
Sep 11, 09:44 AM
If they add the "album only" feature to *All* Radiohead's songs, more bands will follow. Mostly for marketing reasons. There are lots of those crappy "Radiohead wannabes - ohhhhhh our songs should not be outside their album":mad:
Now, I can't wait for tomorrow's event!
I think Radiohead is a good beat for iTunes when their new album is out. They've just signed a new deal.
Now, I can't wait for tomorrow's event!
I think Radiohead is a good beat for iTunes when their new album is out. They've just signed a new deal.
JackSYi
Jul 21, 02:17 PM
I really should of waited. *sigh
solvs
Jul 23, 12:30 AM
I would really like to see Apple have a laptop cheaper than $1,100, and I think there would be a definite market for the, especially for teenagers looking into getting a Mac. I know that's unlikely, but...
I don't know, I'm kinda expecting it. As seen in the past, I'm sure they'll drop to ~$1000. Maybe even cheaper once they get some of their R&D back and chip prices start to fall. Eventually I see a sub $800 laptop even. Maybe.
I don't know, I'm kinda expecting it. As seen in the past, I'm sure they'll drop to ~$1000. Maybe even cheaper once they get some of their R&D back and chip prices start to fall. Eventually I see a sub $800 laptop even. Maybe.
Sam*
Aug 11, 11:28 AM
I'm also betting that the macbook pro and macbook both get core 2 duo chips, with MBP getting faster ones with 4MB L2 cache, and MB getting slower ones with lower L2 cache.
i agree, this will set them the mb and mbp apart well
Although i still think the macbook will use core duo for a while to come with for now if the mbp's get merom, the mb will have the clock speeds of the current mbp's (2.0 and 2.16) when the new mbp is released,
But most of all i want conroe in the iMac
i agree, this will set them the mb and mbp apart well
Although i still think the macbook will use core duo for a while to come with for now if the mbp's get merom, the mb will have the clock speeds of the current mbp's (2.0 and 2.16) when the new mbp is released,
But most of all i want conroe in the iMac
macduke
May 6, 12:17 AM
This seems like an inevitable move in the convergence of iOS devices and Mac computers. They will eventually be the same thing. Powerful, robust, thin, power efficient, easy to use touch interface. Lion is moving in the direction of the iPad and iOS in general. The iPad has been gaining more Mac-like features and robust applications. I think the time tables are probably off. I don't see this happening for 4 to 5 years at the earliest. But with billions upon billions in cash reserves, Apple can pretty much do whatever they want!
Lesser Evets
May 4, 02:56 PM
Why is everyone freaking out about re-installing the OS? Lion creates a recovery partition as part of the install process. If you need to reinstall, just reboot and hold down option...pick the recovery partition and voila.
Does that work if the hard drive tanks and fumbles, crashes, burns, and is a useless pile of crap?
Does that work if the hard drive tanks and fumbles, crashes, burns, and is a useless pile of crap?
LoganT
Mar 28, 11:01 AM
Maybe iOS 5 will make current iPhones feel like a completely new device.
treysmay
Aug 7, 03:50 PM
friggin canada store isn't up yet. I want to know the canadian damn prices!!
Ommid
Apr 24, 06:19 AM
Very cool! But I hope it will not come until late 2012 :D
Why??
Why??
LobsterDK
Apr 24, 02:04 AM
I'm not impressed if this is where the iMac display is potentially going , the current GPUs can barely drive the resolutions they have now in anything other than simple desktop apps . , can you imagine what video card you would need to drive a game (say portal 2 which has low to modest requirements) at 30fps + on a screen with 3200 or higher resloution ? Well whatever that GPU is , apple will ship with the one released 2 years ago and half the RAM it shipped with on the PC .
I love the mac OS , I love the mac design , I hate the "last years tech with a shiney shell" we seem to have to put up with , super high res screens and faster I/O ports are all well and good , but put a decent GPU in now the mac is becoming a contender as a home gaming platform .
Think I ranted a bit then , sorry :rolleyes:
Desktop rendering performance at a retina display resolution would not be an issue with any modern Mac that shipped with a retina display. As for games, you do not have to render the game at the native screen resolution. The OS X implementation will almost certainly be the same as the iOS implementation. That is, a doubling of the vertical and horizontal resolution.
A game running on a 3840x2160 retina display can render at 1920x1080. No filtering need be applied by the monitor as it is an exact multiple in each direction. A 1920x1080 output resolution from a game would look exactly the same on a 3840x2160 display as it would on a 1920x1080 display. Every 1 pixel in the rendered image would take up 4 pixels on the higher res display. You can test this out on your Mac now with any game that allows you to select a resolution that is half the vertical/horizontal resolution of your current monitor. That is assuming the display is not stupid enough to filter resolutions that are an even division of it's native resolution. Most won't apply any filtering in those cases.
I love the mac OS , I love the mac design , I hate the "last years tech with a shiney shell" we seem to have to put up with , super high res screens and faster I/O ports are all well and good , but put a decent GPU in now the mac is becoming a contender as a home gaming platform .
Think I ranted a bit then , sorry :rolleyes:
Desktop rendering performance at a retina display resolution would not be an issue with any modern Mac that shipped with a retina display. As for games, you do not have to render the game at the native screen resolution. The OS X implementation will almost certainly be the same as the iOS implementation. That is, a doubling of the vertical and horizontal resolution.
A game running on a 3840x2160 retina display can render at 1920x1080. No filtering need be applied by the monitor as it is an exact multiple in each direction. A 1920x1080 output resolution from a game would look exactly the same on a 3840x2160 display as it would on a 1920x1080 display. Every 1 pixel in the rendered image would take up 4 pixels on the higher res display. You can test this out on your Mac now with any game that allows you to select a resolution that is half the vertical/horizontal resolution of your current monitor. That is assuming the display is not stupid enough to filter resolutions that are an even division of it's native resolution. Most won't apply any filtering in those cases.
YS2003
Nov 26, 06:09 PM
I would worry too much about the swivel joint and the connections and cables within breaking, however I do use a touch-screen display ToughBook at work
and I can certainly see where that option might be popular
IF the protective shield to the touch screen could be easily replaced.
They get scratched bad after using them for a while.
I think the swivel mechanism is build to last. I have Fujitsu T4020 and it has the solid swivel mechanism. Passive and Active Screen have their pros and cons. Passive one is like the ones you find on Palm and Pocket PC. Active one requires the special digitizer which is made for active screen. For better sensitivity, the active digitizer unit is better. It's like Wacom's Intuos (pro grade) and Graphire (consumer grade which has less "sensitivity" on your input).
With tablet PC, you need put on screen protector; no question about it. I use Vikuiti screen protector to protect the active digitizer screen. It is un-wise to use Tablet PC without screen protector. If you scratch the screen without using the screen protector, the blame is only on the user of that tablet PC.
and I can certainly see where that option might be popular
IF the protective shield to the touch screen could be easily replaced.
They get scratched bad after using them for a while.
I think the swivel mechanism is build to last. I have Fujitsu T4020 and it has the solid swivel mechanism. Passive and Active Screen have their pros and cons. Passive one is like the ones you find on Palm and Pocket PC. Active one requires the special digitizer which is made for active screen. For better sensitivity, the active digitizer unit is better. It's like Wacom's Intuos (pro grade) and Graphire (consumer grade which has less "sensitivity" on your input).
With tablet PC, you need put on screen protector; no question about it. I use Vikuiti screen protector to protect the active digitizer screen. It is un-wise to use Tablet PC without screen protector. If you scratch the screen without using the screen protector, the blame is only on the user of that tablet PC.
rhsgolfer33
Apr 20, 06:19 PM
Capital gains allows you to choose the timeline and the price to a point. If Capital Gains is special because of time-linked shifts in pricing, why isn't freelance income.
In my mind, income is income.
You certainly can't choose the price in a capital gains situation - that is definitely a market determination; sure, you could sell for less than market it, but that would be pretty stupid and of no benefit.
Capital gains isn't special because of price shifts over time, its special because the government is trying to spur investment - in addition to raising revenue, the tax code is largely a tool to get people to behave in a certain manner. The thought is that giving people a preferential rate on gains from investment encourages people to 1) invest in our economy 2) save for retirement. Whether it works or not is debated by economists and we could probably argue about it all day.
I feel like I'm just repeating myself. I've already addressed that capital gains is not necessarily income.
I'd love it if you could point out where you addressed this, because as a tax accountant, I'm having a hard time thinking of a time when a realized capital gain isn't income - if you have a realized net gain (ie amount realized is greater than your basis in the capital asset), you certainly have income. Certainly you could reinvest that net gain, but that doesn't mean you don't have income, that just means you realized a gain and reinvested the old basis and the gain (income). You're only taxed on realized gains that are recognized by the code (and you can net against realized losses) - sure, I could have an unrealized capital gain that isn't income, but I wouldn't be taxed on it either. Not that I don't agree with some of your points, but I'd really love the same clarification on this that most other posters have been asking for.
I suppose what you are getting at as a trader is that you buy a capital asset for $1000 and sell two days latter for $1100, then reinvest the $1100 into another capital asset. You'd be taxed on the $100 of capital gain even though you effectively have no cash in your hands to pay the tax. Unfortunately for traders, income doesn't mean cash. But a person who was in the trade or business of being a professional trader wouldn't qualify for capital gains treatment anyways, it would all be ordinary income.
In my mind, income is income.
You certainly can't choose the price in a capital gains situation - that is definitely a market determination; sure, you could sell for less than market it, but that would be pretty stupid and of no benefit.
Capital gains isn't special because of price shifts over time, its special because the government is trying to spur investment - in addition to raising revenue, the tax code is largely a tool to get people to behave in a certain manner. The thought is that giving people a preferential rate on gains from investment encourages people to 1) invest in our economy 2) save for retirement. Whether it works or not is debated by economists and we could probably argue about it all day.
I feel like I'm just repeating myself. I've already addressed that capital gains is not necessarily income.
I'd love it if you could point out where you addressed this, because as a tax accountant, I'm having a hard time thinking of a time when a realized capital gain isn't income - if you have a realized net gain (ie amount realized is greater than your basis in the capital asset), you certainly have income. Certainly you could reinvest that net gain, but that doesn't mean you don't have income, that just means you realized a gain and reinvested the old basis and the gain (income). You're only taxed on realized gains that are recognized by the code (and you can net against realized losses) - sure, I could have an unrealized capital gain that isn't income, but I wouldn't be taxed on it either. Not that I don't agree with some of your points, but I'd really love the same clarification on this that most other posters have been asking for.
I suppose what you are getting at as a trader is that you buy a capital asset for $1000 and sell two days latter for $1100, then reinvest the $1100 into another capital asset. You'd be taxed on the $100 of capital gain even though you effectively have no cash in your hands to pay the tax. Unfortunately for traders, income doesn't mean cash. But a person who was in the trade or business of being a professional trader wouldn't qualify for capital gains treatment anyways, it would all be ordinary income.
No comments:
Post a Comment