Intell
Apr 29, 05:52 PM
Lastly, I'm kinda bummed that I haven't made the narration yet.:(
Be patient, your part is arriving. Just hope that the game doesn't end before it.
Me too. Given the theme i was already picturing myself as the marquee artist of the production ;)
You already had a small part, but I'm planning more. You where the thing with an animation of a bending robot drinking tea.
Be patient, your part is arriving. Just hope that the game doesn't end before it.
Me too. Given the theme i was already picturing myself as the marquee artist of the production ;)
You already had a small part, but I'm planning more. You where the thing with an animation of a bending robot drinking tea.
AppleScruff1
May 1, 10:15 PM
It's about time! Too bad he didn't suffer.
MagnusVonMagnum
Nov 20, 10:40 AM
If you don't address those very good reasons, your argument won't be very convincing. We do not want the CPU suck, the identity leaking, the UI inconsistencies, and the very real risk of "zero day" Adobe bugs.
Whom am I trying to convince? Illogical and irrational people who worship Steve Jobs and hate what he hates? Such people will not care or listen to any form of reason. That's why the word fanatic is in fanboy. No, I talk about an option to turn Flash on or off at will and you find it offensive to even offer an option. That is irrational at best.
Everything you fear would be avoided if someone just turned Flash OFF (or it could default to off and have to be turned on). I've said since the first post the word OPTION. You don't seem to comprehend that word or understand why those of us that would want the choice of having Flash are not asking you to give up anything in the process. You could always turn it off if it were present. We cannot turn it on if it's not present.
In other words, you are not competent to carry on a rational discussion. You're just here to vent.
No, I just don't see any point in trying to carry on a logical, rational discussion with someone whose "argument" is based purely on emotion. If it weren't, you wouldn't object to an option for those of us that don't agree with Steve Jobs point of view because an option satisfies all your arguments against having Flash because you can always just leave it OFF. It cannot do harm if it's off no matter how paranoid you may become about having it on your device.
Many millions of people have Flash installed on their Macs (let alone those using Windows and Linux) and they could remove it. They know that if they do, some web sites will cease to function properly and thus they leave it on. The security concerns you mentioned will be addressed as all security bugs are in both OSX and Windows.
Users of those 120M+ devices don't have to hope. They are already free of Flash!
Free of Flash? You say that in a tone that sounds like they're free of slavery or something. No, what they're free of is the ability to access millions of web sites that require Flash to view them or much of their content and I do not see that as a good thing. But my point of view doesn't require you to see it. I said from the first post I wanted an option to use Flash. You could still choose to turn it off if it were there. I cannot turn on what is not present nor should I have to buy some absurd 3rd party converter that requires their web site to be running to use it.
The analogy makes no sense. Nobody is forcing you to use any Apple product.
And so that makes it OK for him to behave as he does? A lot of us like Apple products, but we would like them a lot better if Steve would just stick to making the products unfettered instead of trying to force his opinions and world view on people in the process. He doesn't like Flash so he decides for everyone they should not use Flash. What if Steve decided iOS shall no longer support MP3 files, only AAC? I suppose you would accept that as OK too? Update iOS and your MP3s no longer function. Yes, that would be just wonderful if they did that. After all, AAC is superior to MP3, so why should Apple support a legacy inferior heavily pirated format? By your logic, they should not.
If you really want the "full web experience" of zero-day Adobe bugs, get an Android phone. Note: Android phones were vulnerable to the last zero-day Adobe bug. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt)
I don't want a phone period guy. I only want and use an iPod Touch. Is there an Android iPod Touch? Android didn't exist when Apple made the claims of accessing the full Internet either and it doesn't make that any less a lie.
The fact that I can't catch zero-day Adobe attacks on my iPhone is a great reason to praise Apple's decision.
You act as if Apple has no vulnerabilities to attack. That is extremely naive to the point of emotionalism once again. In fact it's just the opposite. Apple's security is rated as bad compared to Windows and only the fact that there are so few Mac users compared to Windows has saved it thus far. As the popularity of iOS devices has exploded, it's inevitable that it will start attracting malware. It's only a matter of time. Will you wish you never bought an iPhone on that day or will you recognize that companies simply have to find and patch vulnerabilities. Apple has patched numerous security flaws in OSX over the years. Should we plug our ears and say there is no such thing?
Do tell: what exact sites are you talking about? What exact legacy flash applications are running on those sites to which you can find no substitute?
A quick search (you do know how to do that don't you?) reveals offhand a few example sites that don't use HTML5 video (which could and may in the future, but that doesn't help someone today):
Gametrailers
GiantBomb
Vimeo
Playstation Blog
Stiq of Joy
Engadget
Try some of these effects on this site this with HTML5:
http://superior-web-solutions.com/
Maybe read this article on Flash. Most HTML5 is just a video player. Flash isn't just a video player and it didn't even start as one.
http://www.andrewgreig.com/2010/06/html5-is-not-a-flash-replacement-and-shouldnt-be-seen-that-way/
Perhaps you want an open standard? So when does Apple stop requiring Quicktime on their web sites? :rolleyes:
Nobody is holding a gun to your head. Nobody is holding you hostage.
If you don't like the choices that Apple made, then ditch your iOS device and get an Android. Simple.
No, they're just boring me to death with emotional arguments why everyone should either worship Steve Jobs or leave the platform and get an Android instead similar to the "love OSX or leave it" arguments the fanboys regularly produce.
This is the first little lie in your rant. The iOS users don't find it inconvenient. If Flash were so damn important to them, they would have bought some device that could run Flash.
The fact that you think my statement is a "lie" based on a subjective opinion tells me you cannot even tell fact from fiction let alone lies from opinions. Trying to see someone else's point of view is completely foreign to you. You view the world through tinted lenses. What you say is akin to if you don't like something about OSX, go buy a Windows machine, as if there aren't any compromises along the way on that platform either (not to mention having to replace possibly thousands and thousands of dollars worth of software for a given platform to do so). Not liking something about a given platform and wanting to change it doesn't mean another platform is more viable in ALL areas or that a person may wish to spend a lot of money to make that change just because of that one issue. Perhaps you'd like to send me a free Android phone to replace my aging 1st Gen iPod Touch that I bought before Android even existed? I'd happily consider such an offer. Of course I'll need replacement apps as well.
The people who bought those 120M+ devices disagree with you.
You seem to forge that I and others that actually want Flash are part of those people dude. Get over yourself. Just because you don't like Flash doesn't mean the rest of us have hatred for it. Some of us simply don't like our iPhones, iPads and iPod Touches crippled for no reason. Besides, how you try to turn my initial argument that I'd prefer to see an option to use Flash for those of us that want it rather than no option into this flipping crusade against all things Apple and Flash alike is beyond me. You are making mountains out of mole hills and lies out of opinions. For what? I can't make you see things the way I see them. I never wanted to try. That's why I said OPTION. But you would deny everyone who wants that option to have it just like Steve Jobs. Steve does it because he's a control freak (he was once ousted from Apple for this very reason). I imagine you do it because you love Apple. Sadly, I actually prefer Steve's reason.
This is the second little lie. Apple did provide a choice: they approved the SkyFire App. They didn't have to do that.
Didn't they? It doesn't violate their rules for an app so how could they not approve it without being outright liars? Oh wait. They have done that before so I can see your point. ;)
Apple has also announced they will approve Flash Apps using Adobe's cross-compiler for iOS. If there actually are crucial Flash apps -- you haven't named a single specific one so far -- the owners of those apps should be able to easily cross-compile their apps for the iOS App Store.
Apple formerly announced they would NOT support it. Why did they change their minds? Could it have something to do with the Justice Department starting an investigation into anti-trust behaviors by Apple policies? Noooo....it couldn't be that. Apple is allowed to single out companies it doesn't like and compete with to just willy-nilly throw specifically into their license agreements.
And that is the third little lie. Flash is a proprietary and legacy platform. It's on the way down now.
I say if you don't have Flash you don't have the full Internet and you call that a "lie" based on the above quote? What freaking UNIVERSE do you live in??????? ROTFLMAO. You cannot tell a statement of fact from an idea in your head that somehow says that the "full internet" doesn't include sites that use "propriety" formats. Come on man. That position not only ignore reality it even invalidiates Apple's own web site as being part of the "full Internet" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You need to try harder. Calling someone a liar when they are obviously stating facts and/or opinions just makes you look immature.
because accusing someone of lying when it's obvious
Even Adobe has acknowledged that a Flash-only choice is a bankrupt strategy (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999). After websites start offering their content with an open standard, you've gotta ask: what exactly is the value in continuing to prop up Flash?
First of all, you are the one that is calling it a "bankrupt strategy". I see nothing in that thread by Adobe that even addresses the matter. Adobe is simply trying to sell products and if they can easily sell more products to Apple users by providing an easy way to convert their hard work Flash sites into HTML5, they are going to do so and laugh all the way to the bank. That in NO WAY invalidates the fact that there are still plenty of Flash only sites out there and plenty of flash uses (e.g. Flash games) that HTML5 is no simple substitute for regardless. Until the Internet is Flash free, there is going to be a need and a will by people to have the option to view Flash.
The mere fact that this Skyfire app has raked in over $1 MILLION in sales already shows just how big that will is. Yet you reject the desire to be able to use Flash web sites as meaningless and unnecessary while the thread title alone proves you wrong.
Funny Animal Clips
funny animal clips
Youtube funny horse snow
animal videos on YouTube.
For more funny animal videos
For more funny animal videos
Funny Talking Animals-Walk On
Watch free funny videos,
funny animal pictures.
Funny Animals amp; Kids videos
Videos, youtube videos
funny animal videos,
Under: Funny Animal Videos
Funny Banned From Youtube
Funny Videos Youtube Videos;
weird animal videos of the
Whom am I trying to convince? Illogical and irrational people who worship Steve Jobs and hate what he hates? Such people will not care or listen to any form of reason. That's why the word fanatic is in fanboy. No, I talk about an option to turn Flash on or off at will and you find it offensive to even offer an option. That is irrational at best.
Everything you fear would be avoided if someone just turned Flash OFF (or it could default to off and have to be turned on). I've said since the first post the word OPTION. You don't seem to comprehend that word or understand why those of us that would want the choice of having Flash are not asking you to give up anything in the process. You could always turn it off if it were present. We cannot turn it on if it's not present.
In other words, you are not competent to carry on a rational discussion. You're just here to vent.
No, I just don't see any point in trying to carry on a logical, rational discussion with someone whose "argument" is based purely on emotion. If it weren't, you wouldn't object to an option for those of us that don't agree with Steve Jobs point of view because an option satisfies all your arguments against having Flash because you can always just leave it OFF. It cannot do harm if it's off no matter how paranoid you may become about having it on your device.
Many millions of people have Flash installed on their Macs (let alone those using Windows and Linux) and they could remove it. They know that if they do, some web sites will cease to function properly and thus they leave it on. The security concerns you mentioned will be addressed as all security bugs are in both OSX and Windows.
Users of those 120M+ devices don't have to hope. They are already free of Flash!
Free of Flash? You say that in a tone that sounds like they're free of slavery or something. No, what they're free of is the ability to access millions of web sites that require Flash to view them or much of their content and I do not see that as a good thing. But my point of view doesn't require you to see it. I said from the first post I wanted an option to use Flash. You could still choose to turn it off if it were there. I cannot turn on what is not present nor should I have to buy some absurd 3rd party converter that requires their web site to be running to use it.
The analogy makes no sense. Nobody is forcing you to use any Apple product.
And so that makes it OK for him to behave as he does? A lot of us like Apple products, but we would like them a lot better if Steve would just stick to making the products unfettered instead of trying to force his opinions and world view on people in the process. He doesn't like Flash so he decides for everyone they should not use Flash. What if Steve decided iOS shall no longer support MP3 files, only AAC? I suppose you would accept that as OK too? Update iOS and your MP3s no longer function. Yes, that would be just wonderful if they did that. After all, AAC is superior to MP3, so why should Apple support a legacy inferior heavily pirated format? By your logic, they should not.
If you really want the "full web experience" of zero-day Adobe bugs, get an Android phone. Note: Android phones were vulnerable to the last zero-day Adobe bug. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt)
I don't want a phone period guy. I only want and use an iPod Touch. Is there an Android iPod Touch? Android didn't exist when Apple made the claims of accessing the full Internet either and it doesn't make that any less a lie.
The fact that I can't catch zero-day Adobe attacks on my iPhone is a great reason to praise Apple's decision.
You act as if Apple has no vulnerabilities to attack. That is extremely naive to the point of emotionalism once again. In fact it's just the opposite. Apple's security is rated as bad compared to Windows and only the fact that there are so few Mac users compared to Windows has saved it thus far. As the popularity of iOS devices has exploded, it's inevitable that it will start attracting malware. It's only a matter of time. Will you wish you never bought an iPhone on that day or will you recognize that companies simply have to find and patch vulnerabilities. Apple has patched numerous security flaws in OSX over the years. Should we plug our ears and say there is no such thing?
Do tell: what exact sites are you talking about? What exact legacy flash applications are running on those sites to which you can find no substitute?
A quick search (you do know how to do that don't you?) reveals offhand a few example sites that don't use HTML5 video (which could and may in the future, but that doesn't help someone today):
Gametrailers
GiantBomb
Vimeo
Playstation Blog
Stiq of Joy
Engadget
Try some of these effects on this site this with HTML5:
http://superior-web-solutions.com/
Maybe read this article on Flash. Most HTML5 is just a video player. Flash isn't just a video player and it didn't even start as one.
http://www.andrewgreig.com/2010/06/html5-is-not-a-flash-replacement-and-shouldnt-be-seen-that-way/
Perhaps you want an open standard? So when does Apple stop requiring Quicktime on their web sites? :rolleyes:
Nobody is holding a gun to your head. Nobody is holding you hostage.
If you don't like the choices that Apple made, then ditch your iOS device and get an Android. Simple.
No, they're just boring me to death with emotional arguments why everyone should either worship Steve Jobs or leave the platform and get an Android instead similar to the "love OSX or leave it" arguments the fanboys regularly produce.
This is the first little lie in your rant. The iOS users don't find it inconvenient. If Flash were so damn important to them, they would have bought some device that could run Flash.
The fact that you think my statement is a "lie" based on a subjective opinion tells me you cannot even tell fact from fiction let alone lies from opinions. Trying to see someone else's point of view is completely foreign to you. You view the world through tinted lenses. What you say is akin to if you don't like something about OSX, go buy a Windows machine, as if there aren't any compromises along the way on that platform either (not to mention having to replace possibly thousands and thousands of dollars worth of software for a given platform to do so). Not liking something about a given platform and wanting to change it doesn't mean another platform is more viable in ALL areas or that a person may wish to spend a lot of money to make that change just because of that one issue. Perhaps you'd like to send me a free Android phone to replace my aging 1st Gen iPod Touch that I bought before Android even existed? I'd happily consider such an offer. Of course I'll need replacement apps as well.
The people who bought those 120M+ devices disagree with you.
You seem to forge that I and others that actually want Flash are part of those people dude. Get over yourself. Just because you don't like Flash doesn't mean the rest of us have hatred for it. Some of us simply don't like our iPhones, iPads and iPod Touches crippled for no reason. Besides, how you try to turn my initial argument that I'd prefer to see an option to use Flash for those of us that want it rather than no option into this flipping crusade against all things Apple and Flash alike is beyond me. You are making mountains out of mole hills and lies out of opinions. For what? I can't make you see things the way I see them. I never wanted to try. That's why I said OPTION. But you would deny everyone who wants that option to have it just like Steve Jobs. Steve does it because he's a control freak (he was once ousted from Apple for this very reason). I imagine you do it because you love Apple. Sadly, I actually prefer Steve's reason.
This is the second little lie. Apple did provide a choice: they approved the SkyFire App. They didn't have to do that.
Didn't they? It doesn't violate their rules for an app so how could they not approve it without being outright liars? Oh wait. They have done that before so I can see your point. ;)
Apple has also announced they will approve Flash Apps using Adobe's cross-compiler for iOS. If there actually are crucial Flash apps -- you haven't named a single specific one so far -- the owners of those apps should be able to easily cross-compile their apps for the iOS App Store.
Apple formerly announced they would NOT support it. Why did they change their minds? Could it have something to do with the Justice Department starting an investigation into anti-trust behaviors by Apple policies? Noooo....it couldn't be that. Apple is allowed to single out companies it doesn't like and compete with to just willy-nilly throw specifically into their license agreements.
And that is the third little lie. Flash is a proprietary and legacy platform. It's on the way down now.
I say if you don't have Flash you don't have the full Internet and you call that a "lie" based on the above quote? What freaking UNIVERSE do you live in??????? ROTFLMAO. You cannot tell a statement of fact from an idea in your head that somehow says that the "full internet" doesn't include sites that use "propriety" formats. Come on man. That position not only ignore reality it even invalidiates Apple's own web site as being part of the "full Internet" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You need to try harder. Calling someone a liar when they are obviously stating facts and/or opinions just makes you look immature.
because accusing someone of lying when it's obvious
Even Adobe has acknowledged that a Flash-only choice is a bankrupt strategy (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999). After websites start offering their content with an open standard, you've gotta ask: what exactly is the value in continuing to prop up Flash?
First of all, you are the one that is calling it a "bankrupt strategy". I see nothing in that thread by Adobe that even addresses the matter. Adobe is simply trying to sell products and if they can easily sell more products to Apple users by providing an easy way to convert their hard work Flash sites into HTML5, they are going to do so and laugh all the way to the bank. That in NO WAY invalidates the fact that there are still plenty of Flash only sites out there and plenty of flash uses (e.g. Flash games) that HTML5 is no simple substitute for regardless. Until the Internet is Flash free, there is going to be a need and a will by people to have the option to view Flash.
The mere fact that this Skyfire app has raked in over $1 MILLION in sales already shows just how big that will is. Yet you reject the desire to be able to use Flash web sites as meaningless and unnecessary while the thread title alone proves you wrong.
iTravis
Apr 22, 05:52 PM
Hopefully they use a different type of material for the back. Matte perhaps? This wouldn't be that bad, to be honest. Bigger screen, faster and a revamp of iOS 5 is all I really want.
I'm sure Apple won't disappoint & I'm almost certain they will not use this kind of material for the phone.
I'm sure Apple won't disappoint & I'm almost certain they will not use this kind of material for the phone.
Christopher387A
Apr 26, 05:41 PM
No thanks Apple. I'll keep my music locally for free.
twoodcc
Oct 29, 01:02 PM
for now, we'll see what happens in the long term.
sounds good. it would be great if you run bigadv units on that machine. you saw what it can do from whiterabbit's stats.
sounds good. it would be great if you run bigadv units on that machine. you saw what it can do from whiterabbit's stats.
MacQuest
Oct 18, 06:39 PM
Where are these figures?
Aaaand in 3 ... 2 ... 1:
REALITY CHECK.
This is why I posted my comment correcting your innaccurate assumption that "the iPod is still Apple's cash cow".
The funny part is that I was in no way "defending" the iPod, since I don't have one at the moment and was just as annoyed at Apple as everyone else that Macs were not centerstage... in '04 and '05.
We're rounding out '06 and that argument hasn't held water since last year.
It's been ALL about Mac in '06
Aaaand in 3 ... 2 ... 1:
REALITY CHECK.
This is why I posted my comment correcting your innaccurate assumption that "the iPod is still Apple's cash cow".
The funny part is that I was in no way "defending" the iPod, since I don't have one at the moment and was just as annoyed at Apple as everyone else that Macs were not centerstage... in '04 and '05.
We're rounding out '06 and that argument hasn't held water since last year.
It's been ALL about Mac in '06
AndroidfoLife
Apr 22, 01:57 AM
What is apple complaining about
I think this is a lawsuit its best for everyone to avoid.
I think this is a lawsuit its best for everyone to avoid.
chanerz
Sep 17, 01:20 PM
gt5 ftw!!!!
PeterQVenkman
Apr 13, 08:15 PM
Anyone actually planning on buying this? Especially with a refresh right around the corner?
I dunno, September announcement and probably October for real availability seems a long time to wait.
The white one looks hot.
I dunno, September announcement and probably October for real availability seems a long time to wait.
The white one looks hot.
seanpholman
Mar 16, 10:18 AM
I am in my way from HB, just in case.
--S
--S
*LTD*
Apr 13, 02:38 PM
If true, it could be absolutely huge. Truly landmark. Imagine if Apple could somehow do the the TV industry what they did to nearly every other industry (segment) they're in?
The possibilities are pretty astounding. This is the Apple of folks. They have the money, drive, talent and momentum to get into any market and shake things up with a very good chance of success, and make the established players look totally flat-footed in the process.
The possibilities are pretty astounding. This is the Apple of folks. They have the money, drive, talent and momentum to get into any market and shake things up with a very good chance of success, and make the established players look totally flat-footed in the process.
rmhop81
Apr 26, 01:46 PM
It'll be a pathetic excuse for a cloud if it'll only stream in the US (which if they continue with this 1 datacenter model will be the case). Amazon will beat them here, hands down. Have you seen how many datacenters they have?
http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2008/11/18/where-amazons-data-centers-are-located/
^ That vs 1 datacenter...lets think...who's going to get the better performance...
Also, the point of the cloud is redundancy. What happens WHEN the 1 datacenter goes down (e.g power problems, network problems, natural disasters, etc)? Apple's will be wiped out in one move, Amazon just fail over to another DC location.
here's another article for you.....
http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/web/04/22/amazon.cloud.mashable/index.html?iref=allsearch
http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2008/11/18/where-amazons-data-centers-are-located/
^ That vs 1 datacenter...lets think...who's going to get the better performance...
Also, the point of the cloud is redundancy. What happens WHEN the 1 datacenter goes down (e.g power problems, network problems, natural disasters, etc)? Apple's will be wiped out in one move, Amazon just fail over to another DC location.
here's another article for you.....
http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/web/04/22/amazon.cloud.mashable/index.html?iref=allsearch
aristotle
Apr 28, 05:01 PM
Surely by now there is someone out there with a White iPhone, a messuring tape or calipers that can just tell us these photos are nonsense? Please? Pretty please? Xxx
Yes, everyone carries calipers or measuring tape with them everywhere. Get a grip already.
Yes, everyone carries calipers or measuring tape with them everywhere. Get a grip already.
yg17
Apr 29, 03:22 PM
You like lossy compression? How 1990's of you.
iTunes is lossy too :rolleyes:
Edit: And glad to see someone downrated me for stating a fact. Real mature.
iTunes is lossy too :rolleyes:
Edit: And glad to see someone downrated me for stating a fact. Real mature.
bloodycape
Jul 12, 01:58 PM
Not if you tie the iPod to iChat. "Videoconferencing, on the go".
I see where you are getting at but who would want to use an ipod for video conferencing when the business user which it is aimed at rather use a phone like the Razr V3x, a pda or that new 4.5in Sony tablet pc.
I see where you are getting at but who would want to use an ipod for video conferencing when the business user which it is aimed at rather use a phone like the Razr V3x, a pda or that new 4.5in Sony tablet pc.
MattInOz
Apr 18, 09:03 PM
I'm not really sure what the point would be. If you lay a 17 or 20 inch Mac down on your lap, give it a touch screen, and modify the interface so it's more suited to the less precise input of fingers� haven't you just created a bigger iPad? (Not that a bigger iPad wouldn't have it's uses, but it wouldn't be a Mac, and I'd question whether it would warrant yet another 'marketing name'.
I suppose it's possible, as many presume, that Apple is looking to merge OS X and iOS, but it's never been that convincing of an argument to me. There are some real incompatibilities between the two in my mind. Many OS X apps demand the precision and unrestricted visibility that a keyboard and mouse give you, but once you're using a keyboard and mouse, the display has moved away from your fingers. A vertical display keeps it within reach, but humans just aren't suited to using a vertical touch screen for more than a few minutes, as Steve Jobs has himself remarked.
If the future were some kind of OS X / iOS hybrid, why did Apple invent iOS in the first place? Why not just go straight for this touchable OS X Nirvana if it exists? I suspect it doesn't exist, and Apple understood that a usable touchscreen interface has a unique set of requirements, benefits and limitations.
As for what this 'ix.Mac.MarketingName' is, I actually haven't a clue. It's somewhat intriguing though. It's kind of exciting to think that the inventive minds at Apple might be hatching some new kind of device. A little optimistic maybe, but who knows?
Was thinking more of a desktop touch screen device. Different from the iPad which wants to be picked up and used, but is workable on your lap. This mythical desktop touch device would still need to be light enough that you could lift it up and just change it's orientation at will like an iPad. Yet with a stand so it could be standing upright in portrait or landscape yet moved and sit anywhere down to almost flat on the desk. That way if you want the screen upright you can have, yet small enough that your not putting it to far away and for the odd navigation touch command would not be to bad. Yet lying down you get the full advantage and directness of touch screen.
This device would be great for Graphics, CAD, 3D modeling, even FCP maybe where the ability to make the workflow even more direct and tactile would be a real advantage.
I can't see this device happening this year, but I can dream can't I. See the other part that seems to missing is something that has the directness of touch but and doesn't obscure what your doing like a mouse so you get the accuracy, but you can't do this at the expense of the other input means on there respective platforms. Or in other words a stylus but it has to work with fingers as well but not spongy like the current ones you can buy.
To me the keyboards a red herring, both OSX and iOS can use either real or on screen keyboard. The difference comes down to point device.
As for why they split off iOS as a branch, well where now five years in and only with Lion is it looking like the two will align. So if they waited till OS X was ready they would have forgone the last 4 years of iOS device revenue plus maybe the next 2-3 years as well before it was really ready for the general purpose touchable OS. Even then it would be doubtful if One Application Framework is diverse enough to cover 4 families of products each with there own tweaks to how you work with them.
It's funny for all the advantages of computers it's only now we see them becoming as intuitive as pencil and paper some time in the next 5ish years.
Yep so intrigued to what this new device maybe if it''s anything all. There some really fun possibilities. Just not sure which one is "ready" for this year.
I suppose it's possible, as many presume, that Apple is looking to merge OS X and iOS, but it's never been that convincing of an argument to me. There are some real incompatibilities between the two in my mind. Many OS X apps demand the precision and unrestricted visibility that a keyboard and mouse give you, but once you're using a keyboard and mouse, the display has moved away from your fingers. A vertical display keeps it within reach, but humans just aren't suited to using a vertical touch screen for more than a few minutes, as Steve Jobs has himself remarked.
If the future were some kind of OS X / iOS hybrid, why did Apple invent iOS in the first place? Why not just go straight for this touchable OS X Nirvana if it exists? I suspect it doesn't exist, and Apple understood that a usable touchscreen interface has a unique set of requirements, benefits and limitations.
As for what this 'ix.Mac.MarketingName' is, I actually haven't a clue. It's somewhat intriguing though. It's kind of exciting to think that the inventive minds at Apple might be hatching some new kind of device. A little optimistic maybe, but who knows?
Was thinking more of a desktop touch screen device. Different from the iPad which wants to be picked up and used, but is workable on your lap. This mythical desktop touch device would still need to be light enough that you could lift it up and just change it's orientation at will like an iPad. Yet with a stand so it could be standing upright in portrait or landscape yet moved and sit anywhere down to almost flat on the desk. That way if you want the screen upright you can have, yet small enough that your not putting it to far away and for the odd navigation touch command would not be to bad. Yet lying down you get the full advantage and directness of touch screen.
This device would be great for Graphics, CAD, 3D modeling, even FCP maybe where the ability to make the workflow even more direct and tactile would be a real advantage.
I can't see this device happening this year, but I can dream can't I. See the other part that seems to missing is something that has the directness of touch but and doesn't obscure what your doing like a mouse so you get the accuracy, but you can't do this at the expense of the other input means on there respective platforms. Or in other words a stylus but it has to work with fingers as well but not spongy like the current ones you can buy.
To me the keyboards a red herring, both OSX and iOS can use either real or on screen keyboard. The difference comes down to point device.
As for why they split off iOS as a branch, well where now five years in and only with Lion is it looking like the two will align. So if they waited till OS X was ready they would have forgone the last 4 years of iOS device revenue plus maybe the next 2-3 years as well before it was really ready for the general purpose touchable OS. Even then it would be doubtful if One Application Framework is diverse enough to cover 4 families of products each with there own tweaks to how you work with them.
It's funny for all the advantages of computers it's only now we see them becoming as intuitive as pencil and paper some time in the next 5ish years.
Yep so intrigued to what this new device maybe if it''s anything all. There some really fun possibilities. Just not sure which one is "ready" for this year.
tjcampbell
Jun 6, 08:59 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7E18 Safari/528.16)
What's the big deal! Imagine if he downloaded the app, learned everything, passed the exam. Wonderboy Lawyer!!!!!!
What's the big deal! Imagine if he downloaded the app, learned everything, passed the exam. Wonderboy Lawyer!!!!!!
mikethebigo
Apr 12, 09:03 AM
Looks like ill be going to Android.
Why? You know, arguably the best Android phone out right now (the Nexus S) still basically has the same processor and a lower res screen than the iPhone 4. In fact, I think the iPhone 4 will easily pass the test of time until September, especially if it gets some iOS 5 goodness in the summer.
Why? You know, arguably the best Android phone out right now (the Nexus S) still basically has the same processor and a lower res screen than the iPhone 4. In fact, I think the iPhone 4 will easily pass the test of time until September, especially if it gets some iOS 5 goodness in the summer.
firewood
Apr 14, 10:24 AM
A native Mac OS X app that will run iOS apps.
Interesting possibility. It would be extremely difficult to emulate a complete iOS device (custom ASICs and all). But Apple could emulate just enough ARM instructions to emulate an app that was compiled by Xcode & LLVM (which would limit the way ARM instructions were generated), and used only legal public iOS APIs (instead of emulating hardware and all the registers), which could be translated in Cocoa APIs to display on a Mac OS X machine.
Interesting possibility. It would be extremely difficult to emulate a complete iOS device (custom ASICs and all). But Apple could emulate just enough ARM instructions to emulate an app that was compiled by Xcode & LLVM (which would limit the way ARM instructions were generated), and used only legal public iOS APIs (instead of emulating hardware and all the registers), which could be translated in Cocoa APIs to display on a Mac OS X machine.
Eldiablojoe
Apr 24, 09:36 PM
I think "cali" is acceptable.
It is if you're LL Cool J or you're from New York in the '80's and clueless.
Otherwise, No.
No one calls Florida, "Flo" or Illinois "Illy" :rolleyes:
It is if you're LL Cool J or you're from New York in the '80's and clueless.
Otherwise, No.
No one calls Florida, "Flo" or Illinois "Illy" :rolleyes:
vpndev
Apr 22, 05:21 PM
No "AT&T" !
There's always hope!
There's always hope!
JurgenWigg
Jul 21, 10:31 AM
I say we'll have 5.5% next year. :) :D
3 GHZ BY NEXT YEAR
oh wait... ;)
3 GHZ BY NEXT YEAR
oh wait... ;)
dextertangocci
Jul 28, 07:58 AM
This is great news! When the Zune is at its peak in three-five years, it can coincide with the first release of Vista in 2009-2012.
Do you seriously think VISTA (Viruses, Infections, Spyware, Trojans & Adware) is going to be released that early?:rolleyes: lol.
Do you seriously think VISTA (Viruses, Infections, Spyware, Trojans & Adware) is going to be released that early?:rolleyes: lol.
