mantan
Apr 15, 09:39 PM
If competition results in innovation, why has the Windows PC not evolved into something better. Lord knows that arena is packed with competition.
The downward pressure on prices actually inhibits innovation. R & D is the first thing to go when the pressure gets high. The focus becomes, "How can we make this cheaper?" Let that go on for a couple decades and you get such poorly made PCs that they are disposable.
The market doesn't need the PC to evolve anymore. From a hardware perspective, most people could use hardware made 5 years ago to do the simple applications they use.
On the other hand, PC software has evolved where there has been a need and competition drives it.
Building things cheaper at the sake of cutting costs and innovation doesn't work. The american automobile industry is a living proof of that.
The downward pressure on prices actually inhibits innovation. R & D is the first thing to go when the pressure gets high. The focus becomes, "How can we make this cheaper?" Let that go on for a couple decades and you get such poorly made PCs that they are disposable.
The market doesn't need the PC to evolve anymore. From a hardware perspective, most people could use hardware made 5 years ago to do the simple applications they use.
On the other hand, PC software has evolved where there has been a need and competition drives it.
Building things cheaper at the sake of cutting costs and innovation doesn't work. The american automobile industry is a living proof of that.
vwcruisn
Apr 5, 03:28 PM
Probably, but as I am in the Marketing and Advertising business I will find this quite useful. Many of you are so quick to dismiss the usefulness of this App simply because you don't understand its true purpose.
"doesn't apply to me so it's useless" mentality. guess the world revolves around them :p
"doesn't apply to me so it's useless" mentality. guess the world revolves around them :p
emotion
Nov 16, 07:23 AM
I'd consider it highly unlikley but here's the rumour (it's be wise for Apple to have rumours circulated just to keep Intel sharp):
http://www.digitimes.com/systems/a20061115PR207.html
http://www.digitimes.com/systems/a20061115PR207.html
ConnorCG
Apr 29, 01:17 PM
Yeah that doesn't sit too well with me either. But as long as there are a good set of nice new features without much of the iPad-ness mucking it up I'll be pleased. I hope to see more of Lion soon, the more features the better! :D
Yeah, not a lot of stuff has changed from Snow Leopard in the way of user interface, and most of the stuff can be avoided completely, like LaunchPad. There are some annoying things that I've noticed though, like DigitalColor Meter only having the option for RGB colors, and nothing else. Something small that is really annoying.
Yeah, not a lot of stuff has changed from Snow Leopard in the way of user interface, and most of the stuff can be avoided completely, like LaunchPad. There are some annoying things that I've noticed though, like DigitalColor Meter only having the option for RGB colors, and nothing else. Something small that is really annoying.
more...
Kiwi Jones
Jul 21, 12:12 PM
Umm, that's still less than 1%. That's pretty good. That would be out of 100 million calls. 99 million calls were fine.
Not to mention the thousands and thousands of people purposely replicating the issue to show others how it can drop a call. I wonder how many dropped calls were during normal use. I know i've replicated it a few times but have dropped 1 call since launch. And that was in an area with sh***y reception.
Not to mention the thousands and thousands of people purposely replicating the issue to show others how it can drop a call. I wonder how many dropped calls were during normal use. I know i've replicated it a few times but have dropped 1 call since launch. And that was in an area with sh***y reception.
rwilliams
Mar 28, 03:59 PM
He didn't say everyone who cries foul is a hater.
Yet it has become the norm in these forums to label anyone who doesn't like or agree with a decision, design, product, etc. a 'hater'. It's lazy and ignorant.
Yet it has become the norm in these forums to label anyone who doesn't like or agree with a decision, design, product, etc. a 'hater'. It's lazy and ignorant.
more...
insignificantMB
Apr 25, 12:40 PM
Awe, and I was looking forward to the ipod touch looking mockup.
Shannighan
Jan 15, 04:45 PM
SJ announced 4 m iPhones sold. I believe I read some days ago that 5 m have been expected??
Maybe I'm wrong. But if not, we learned today that iPhone and Apple TV aren't doing well. Apple should refocus on their core business before to many Mac customers leave disappointed.
for a single phone to sell 4million, i think thats amazing!
rim only has 20% more smartphone holding and think of all the versions that it has and how many years has the blackberry been around? atleast 5, problaby way more then that.
Maybe I'm wrong. But if not, we learned today that iPhone and Apple TV aren't doing well. Apple should refocus on their core business before to many Mac customers leave disappointed.
for a single phone to sell 4million, i think thats amazing!
rim only has 20% more smartphone holding and think of all the versions that it has and how many years has the blackberry been around? atleast 5, problaby way more then that.
more...
the-oz-man
Oct 6, 10:45 AM
Love this commercial! AT&T get a clue from your competition. Your 3G coverage sucks!
Mr. DG
Jan 9, 03:00 PM
OK, i dont know if this is a problem, but the URL of the keynote itself happens to contain a spoiler. Could be an issue.
more...
iMeowbot
Sep 25, 09:57 PM
Why would Apple logically develop a piece of software that uses the graphics card when I have four processors - many others have two - begging to be worked. I guess I never understood the logic of using Core Image to power this thing.
Apple did the same thing when they got their hands on the G4s, suddenly everything was a vector problem even if it wasn't. They will get over it a couple years down the road when they notice that even the entry level boxes are going to have dozens of CPU cores soon.
Apple did the same thing when they got their hands on the G4s, suddenly everything was a vector problem even if it wasn't. They will get over it a couple years down the road when they notice that even the entry level boxes are going to have dozens of CPU cores soon.
inkswamp
Mar 24, 09:09 PM
I remember the first time I played around with OS X. It was on one of those colored iBooks at the only store in my town that carried Macs back then. I really hated it. It seemed so pointless at the time. I remember the toolbar buttons were gigantic (remember the big square buttons with the home and heart icons on them?) It was actually sort of depressing thinking that was the future of the Mac. I still didn't find it tolerable until Jaguar 10.2 but even then, there were so many little annoyances with it compared to OS 9. Now, I couldn't ever dream of going back to the Classic Mac OS.
more...
macximum8
Sep 12, 07:34 AM
Apple web site also reporting It's Showtime...
http://phobos.apple.com/showtime/showtime.html
http://phobos.apple.com/showtime/showtime.html
Abstract
Sep 25, 10:29 PM
While I like Aperture's ability to "catalogue" better than Lightroom, I wouldn't choose Aperture over Lightroom right now just because it's better at importing from my camera and "cataloguing" --- not unless I take 500-1000 photos at a time. Lightroom can sort, although I don't like the UI as much. I like Lightroom right now because while not as fantastic as Aperture at sorting, etc, it's much much better at pp. I have literally SAVED a fantastic RAW photo of my girlfriend in tricky lighting with just the editing tools in Lightroom, and I surely could not do that with Aperture.
Lightroom is also faster.
So Aperture has fantastic sorting and cataloguing for those who take >300 photos, but rather poor at post-production (not much editing, and quite slow at what it CAN do).
more...
stratosphere las vegas rides.
The Stratosphere tower, Las
more...
Stratosphere Las Vegas Rides.
Stratosphere, Las Vegas
Stratosphere Las Vegas
Lightroom is also faster.
So Aperture has fantastic sorting and cataloguing for those who take >300 photos, but rather poor at post-production (not much editing, and quite slow at what it CAN do).
more...
zedsdead
Apr 15, 12:58 PM
It's fake. If Apple chooses to use the ipads design with the next iPhone, then it will have the plastic black bar like the 3G version. The apple logo is not enough for all the antenea, just the wi-fi probably.
esaleris
Apr 3, 08:43 PM
Sorry to hear it didn't get better at this point... I was hoping to hear that they busted down the door to find some idiot teenagers playing on the console.
I'm surprised the police have gone down this far with you over the matter. It's at least refreshing to know that they would attempt to find the item. My roommate in college got his laptop stolen and they were pretty damn apathetic.
They went to the house and a lady answered the door. She was more than willing to let the police in to search the place. After searching, they came up with nothing. Not even a single game, controller, anything. The house is a rental house. The guy with the pawn record had moved out two months ago. His lease was up December 31st and this new lady had moved in during January.
I'm surprised the police have gone down this far with you over the matter. It's at least refreshing to know that they would attempt to find the item. My roommate in college got his laptop stolen and they were pretty damn apathetic.
They went to the house and a lady answered the door. She was more than willing to let the police in to search the place. After searching, they came up with nothing. Not even a single game, controller, anything. The house is a rental house. The guy with the pawn record had moved out two months ago. His lease was up December 31st and this new lady had moved in during January.
more...
Korivak
Oct 3, 09:56 PM
I think a lot of people are setting themselves up to be disappointed.
People have been talking about the iPhone for literally years now. And you never know - it might happen. But I think it's more likely that iPods will keep on being iPods. This is the product that hasn't ever added something as simple as an FM tuner, and the reason that they haven't is that it's more parts, more menu items, higher cost and something that only a very few feature addicts care about. Everyone and there uncle already has a cell phone, and a significant percentage of people already have an iPod - and most of them aren't about to throw away hundreds of dollars worth of techie toys that work perfectly to spend hundreds more on something that does the exact same things. Think back to the iPod Photos. Neat idea, a whole new major feature...and the only one that sold well was the one with the larger hard drive. Pretty much everyone thought it was cool, and then ignored it and bought the less expensive monochrome iPod (unless they happened to have 60 GBs of music). Maybe if the iPod was able to add cell support cheaply enough that it was a standard feature across the entire line (like the eventual iPod with Colour Screen), then it would sell - but that's a big engineering and manufacturing challenge for a feature not everyone's going to use (unlike colour album art, which you can't really help but enjoy). Hell, the amount of negotiation it would take to get iPhones working on different networks all around the world (a bit more of a localization issue than just translation and a standard USB interface) would be a nightmare, and probably be better spent getting more music, tv shows and movies.
And a "real" video iPod? I'm content with the current "fake" iPod with Video. Widescreen, larger screen, touch screen, wireless...it's all going to cost money and battery life. If you really want a "real" video iPod, get a Zune when it comes out. Microsoft, sweethearts that they are, will sell it to you at a loss because they don't have to worry about silly and mundane things like profit. But you can't plug it in to your Mac or import your iTMS music to it. Eventually, Apple will figure out a way to improve the iPod and still make a profit, and at that point, they'll release the - say it with me - the iPod. Until then, you can have your choice of the iPod, or not-an-iPod.
Also, if Steve Jobs were to retire, all he'd do all day would be hang out at Apple and give passionate speeches about Apple products. Basically, exactly what he does now.
People have been talking about the iPhone for literally years now. And you never know - it might happen. But I think it's more likely that iPods will keep on being iPods. This is the product that hasn't ever added something as simple as an FM tuner, and the reason that they haven't is that it's more parts, more menu items, higher cost and something that only a very few feature addicts care about. Everyone and there uncle already has a cell phone, and a significant percentage of people already have an iPod - and most of them aren't about to throw away hundreds of dollars worth of techie toys that work perfectly to spend hundreds more on something that does the exact same things. Think back to the iPod Photos. Neat idea, a whole new major feature...and the only one that sold well was the one with the larger hard drive. Pretty much everyone thought it was cool, and then ignored it and bought the less expensive monochrome iPod (unless they happened to have 60 GBs of music). Maybe if the iPod was able to add cell support cheaply enough that it was a standard feature across the entire line (like the eventual iPod with Colour Screen), then it would sell - but that's a big engineering and manufacturing challenge for a feature not everyone's going to use (unlike colour album art, which you can't really help but enjoy). Hell, the amount of negotiation it would take to get iPhones working on different networks all around the world (a bit more of a localization issue than just translation and a standard USB interface) would be a nightmare, and probably be better spent getting more music, tv shows and movies.
And a "real" video iPod? I'm content with the current "fake" iPod with Video. Widescreen, larger screen, touch screen, wireless...it's all going to cost money and battery life. If you really want a "real" video iPod, get a Zune when it comes out. Microsoft, sweethearts that they are, will sell it to you at a loss because they don't have to worry about silly and mundane things like profit. But you can't plug it in to your Mac or import your iTMS music to it. Eventually, Apple will figure out a way to improve the iPod and still make a profit, and at that point, they'll release the - say it with me - the iPod. Until then, you can have your choice of the iPod, or not-an-iPod.
Also, if Steve Jobs were to retire, all he'd do all day would be hang out at Apple and give passionate speeches about Apple products. Basically, exactly what he does now.
airforce1
May 2, 10:51 AM
- iPod bug fixes
Hopefully fixes the bug when album artwork doesn't show on the lock screen. It's not a critical bug, just kinda annoying.
At least apple admitted for the first time ever that they have a bug, i guess they mean BUG as in eavesdropping!
Hopefully fixes the bug when album artwork doesn't show on the lock screen. It's not a critical bug, just kinda annoying.
At least apple admitted for the first time ever that they have a bug, i guess they mean BUG as in eavesdropping!
CaoCao
Apr 17, 03:05 PM
It's so refreshing to see that with their 1 in 4 illiteracy rate and 1 in 5 high school dropout rate, California really has their priorities in order when it comes to education. Well done I say.
There are tons of Hispanic immigrants in California, many are hard working, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are educated
I have no idea what experience you are speaking from, but it isn't universal. :confused:
I assure you that in the junior high, high school, and college classes I took, Hinckley was mentioned, JFK may or may not have been described as a Catholic, and Jodi Foster wasn't even popular yet.
I'm talking about my experiences on history class in California.
There are tons of Hispanic immigrants in California, many are hard working, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are educated
I have no idea what experience you are speaking from, but it isn't universal. :confused:
I assure you that in the junior high, high school, and college classes I took, Hinckley was mentioned, JFK may or may not have been described as a Catholic, and Jodi Foster wasn't even popular yet.
I'm talking about my experiences on history class in California.
garybUK
Mar 10, 07:50 AM
Apple used to innovate, right now they have acheived the goal of any capitalist company, they've hit the big time with the iPhone and are resting on their laurels.
Notebooks / Computers, these aren't innovative, infact the PowerPC was innovative, OSX 10.1 was innovative but now... it's got to a point where they don't innovate, Intel does; Nvidia does; AMD does, apple are a box maker using the same components as everyone else.
Apple A series mobile processors, these are innovated by ARM (spun off from Acorn, a british company). Again they don't innovate.
Where they DO innovate is the idea of a vertical system where typically companies have gone to a horizontal view. The innovation is to capture you with something (be it a Apple TV, iMac, iPhone, iPod) and get you into their vertical structure. The innovation comes at creating a market for all possible user needs within this vertical structure, e.g. Movies, Music, Apps... where they can't make it themselves they take a cut from other developers (30% split).
Notebooks / Computers, these aren't innovative, infact the PowerPC was innovative, OSX 10.1 was innovative but now... it's got to a point where they don't innovate, Intel does; Nvidia does; AMD does, apple are a box maker using the same components as everyone else.
Apple A series mobile processors, these are innovated by ARM (spun off from Acorn, a british company). Again they don't innovate.
Where they DO innovate is the idea of a vertical system where typically companies have gone to a horizontal view. The innovation is to capture you with something (be it a Apple TV, iMac, iPhone, iPod) and get you into their vertical structure. The innovation comes at creating a market for all possible user needs within this vertical structure, e.g. Movies, Music, Apps... where they can't make it themselves they take a cut from other developers (30% split).
Mac-Mariachi
Apr 16, 09:43 AM
The iMac is all aluminum, and it needs the wi-Fi signal, and it seems to work fine.
Yes but the iMac is not 3G, only Wi-Fi. The black antena cover is for 3G reception. :)
Yes but the iMac is not 3G, only Wi-Fi. The black antena cover is for 3G reception. :)
JAT
Apr 17, 01:28 AM
Everything on the original iPhone was already in use by other phones. Apple simply combined them all together in one phone and made it simpler to use. It revolutionized yeah, by simply bringing that stuff to the front of peoples minds.
I'm confused. What are you denying in this post?
Apple has by far the most restrictive ecosystem. You can't even load applications that are not approved by Apple.
Unless....you really want to. Then you can just root your system and do whatever you want. Like, opening yourself up to malware. That was very popular with the Windows users.
I'm confused. What are you denying in this post?
Apple has by far the most restrictive ecosystem. You can't even load applications that are not approved by Apple.
Unless....you really want to. Then you can just root your system and do whatever you want. Like, opening yourself up to malware. That was very popular with the Windows users.
Tommyg117
Sep 25, 10:12 PM
Excellent news, good to see aperture more integrated into the iLife.
goober1223
Apr 6, 11:21 AM
With respect, you clearly don't work in advertising. You pay to put ads in front of the right people, not just anyone. Especially not competing advertisers and agencies. Why do you think Google (a) makes so much advertising revenue and (b) collects so much data about its users? Coincidence?
Secondly individuals are just as greedy as corporations, and generally get to operate outside of the spotlight. Apple has a lot to lose if its iAd platform is seen to be poorly targeting users, but an App developer has a lot to gain from indiscriminate iAd spamming. So in this case, yes, for the sake of self interest I'd expect Apple to reimburse advertisers for clicks inside their iAd app, and I'd expect an independent developer of a similar app to laugh all the way to the bank.
I never said btw I'd expect Apple to reimburse developers for their time on rejected apps. Or if I did I didn't mean it.
I know you didn't say that. I was just explaining my original statement that said that they should.
And no, I don't work in advertising (electrical engineer), so you certainly bring a different view, which I appreciate.
As far as a comparison between corporations and individuals, and in this case Apple, I still see no proof that they aren't charging advertisers for displaying these ads. Certainly, they are more capable than a 3rd party in reimbursing such money, but I also see no proof that there is an exorbitant amount of money to be made here. It's a cool gimmick that will not spend much time in actual use, especially if the ads don't change very often, and if there is no additional content to the application.
Besides, pertaining to your best point, how well are iAds targeted at this point? Considering how few big advertising partners there are, I have a hard time understanding how well they are able to advertise when these ads also aren't included in general browsing, but specifically-purposed apps.
Certainly, Apple wants to get there with iAds, but the first step seems to be to take the premium off of the price. The infrastructure may cost a lot, but they have tons of cash to drain on this project if they want to make it a true competition with google and operate similarly. For instance, if I'm playing "Doodle Bowling", the odds that I will get an iAd for anything relevant to bowling is zero. I also associate bowling with greasy bowling alley food, too, but the odds of having any food advertised (on purpose) appears to be zero, as well. The odds of getting an advertisement for a local bowling alley? Again, zero. If I go online and search "doodle bowling" they have tons of options to select from in targeting my search: past search history (and whatever else they know about me), they know that my search is related to bowling, mobile applications, cartoonish games, etc.
The point is, the differences are innumerous. iAds is absolutely primitive in its targeting capability simply by virtue of how many advertising partners it has, and it should not be any different (at this point) how those ad impressions are received.
Secondly individuals are just as greedy as corporations, and generally get to operate outside of the spotlight. Apple has a lot to lose if its iAd platform is seen to be poorly targeting users, but an App developer has a lot to gain from indiscriminate iAd spamming. So in this case, yes, for the sake of self interest I'd expect Apple to reimburse advertisers for clicks inside their iAd app, and I'd expect an independent developer of a similar app to laugh all the way to the bank.
I never said btw I'd expect Apple to reimburse developers for their time on rejected apps. Or if I did I didn't mean it.
I know you didn't say that. I was just explaining my original statement that said that they should.
And no, I don't work in advertising (electrical engineer), so you certainly bring a different view, which I appreciate.
As far as a comparison between corporations and individuals, and in this case Apple, I still see no proof that they aren't charging advertisers for displaying these ads. Certainly, they are more capable than a 3rd party in reimbursing such money, but I also see no proof that there is an exorbitant amount of money to be made here. It's a cool gimmick that will not spend much time in actual use, especially if the ads don't change very often, and if there is no additional content to the application.
Besides, pertaining to your best point, how well are iAds targeted at this point? Considering how few big advertising partners there are, I have a hard time understanding how well they are able to advertise when these ads also aren't included in general browsing, but specifically-purposed apps.
Certainly, Apple wants to get there with iAds, but the first step seems to be to take the premium off of the price. The infrastructure may cost a lot, but they have tons of cash to drain on this project if they want to make it a true competition with google and operate similarly. For instance, if I'm playing "Doodle Bowling", the odds that I will get an iAd for anything relevant to bowling is zero. I also associate bowling with greasy bowling alley food, too, but the odds of having any food advertised (on purpose) appears to be zero, as well. The odds of getting an advertisement for a local bowling alley? Again, zero. If I go online and search "doodle bowling" they have tons of options to select from in targeting my search: past search history (and whatever else they know about me), they know that my search is related to bowling, mobile applications, cartoonish games, etc.
The point is, the differences are innumerous. iAds is absolutely primitive in its targeting capability simply by virtue of how many advertising partners it has, and it should not be any different (at this point) how those ad impressions are received.
