joepunk
May 1, 10:07 PM
I'm missing Andy Rooney for this long drawn out CBS announcement. :p
I mean, all I need to know is is he dead or not. I don't need 20 questions to 20 different reporters/analysts/etc on whether efforts have been steeped up in the last few months to find/kill osama and other information.
I mean, all I need to know is is he dead or not. I don't need 20 questions to 20 different reporters/analysts/etc on whether efforts have been steeped up in the last few months to find/kill osama and other information.
firestarter
May 1, 11:38 PM
It is not me who decided ... Osama was a Terrorist long before 911 ... you do not seem to know of his involvement ... you should read up on his life of Terrorism.
Yeah, it's all about one guy who was leader of the bad men. And none of the bad men could think for themselves, and now he's gone, they won't know what to do - and we'll all be happy and safe.
Sleep well!
Yeah, it's all about one guy who was leader of the bad men. And none of the bad men could think for themselves, and now he's gone, they won't know what to do - and we'll all be happy and safe.
Sleep well!
HawaiiMacAddict
Apr 14, 03:49 AM
What if it's an actual Apple-branded TV? That's one of the latest rumors making the rounds, again :eek: Actually, if Apple did come out with their own HD (1080p) TV, I would be very interested in purchasing it. It would have TV built into it (of course), and therefore would be able to do everything TV can do, only without having to attach a set-top box to the TV. Additionally, since Apple is designing it, the new actual HDTV would be magical :D
I really don't see Apple making an HDTV, but I've been known to be wrong before (although I don't like to admit it :o).
I really don't see Apple making an HDTV, but I've been known to be wrong before (although I don't like to admit it :o).
ChrisA
Dec 4, 11:45 AM
iAdware apparently works by silently installing a system library. That sounds like a vulnerability that Apple could easily fix, by requiring Admin privileges, issuing a warning, and/or prompting for an Admin password.
Seems easy for an end user to fix it himself. Simply change permision on the library so a non-admin can't write there. About four clicks and you're done with it.
Seems easy for an end user to fix it himself. Simply change permision on the library so a non-admin can't write there. About four clicks and you're done with it.
more...
dba7dba
Apr 13, 03:25 PM
You might have inside sources at Apple, because you seem to be too sure that it will cost 2K and would only last for 2 - 3 years.
I remember people not wanting an iPad when the rumors broke out. Same thing.
So how much do you think the rumored Apple TV should cost to be wildly successful WHILE maintaining 50% (approx) profit margin?
I remember people not wanting an iPad when the rumors broke out. Same thing.
So how much do you think the rumored Apple TV should cost to be wildly successful WHILE maintaining 50% (approx) profit margin?
generik
Aug 18, 04:51 PM
Yet that doesn't change the fact that the BSOD still exists in XP.
The code for kernel panics exists in MacOS too, from my experience sometimes the OS even croaks before it can even draw the cool graphical error screen out. At least Windows XP has a fully functional BSOD :rolleyes:
The code for kernel panics exists in MacOS too, from my experience sometimes the OS even croaks before it can even draw the cool graphical error screen out. At least Windows XP has a fully functional BSOD :rolleyes:
more...
Brien
Mar 12, 02:22 AM
Yeah. I'll be calling Brea tomorrow to vent, but I doubt that will get me anywhere.
And FWIW, most of the AT&T stores here in Fullerton/Brea didn't get any iPads. Makes you wonder how many of each model Apple actually got. Nobody seemed to be touching those Verizon iPads with a 10 foot pole.
And FWIW, most of the AT&T stores here in Fullerton/Brea didn't get any iPads. Makes you wonder how many of each model Apple actually got. Nobody seemed to be touching those Verizon iPads with a 10 foot pole.
dr_lha
Oct 18, 04:31 PM
Nice bump in the stock...AAPL up 5.5% in after hours trading.
Expect it to take a dump tomorrow morning.
Expect it to take a dump tomorrow morning.
more...
WeegieMac
Apr 22, 03:18 AM
Got to love those championing Samsungs televisions.
Horrible, cheap, nasty, overly plastic, flimsy pieces of *****.
Their LED's and Plasma's are reasonable, but I'll never touch their LCD's again.
Had them, sold them, put Bravias through the house. Sorted.
Horrible, cheap, nasty, overly plastic, flimsy pieces of *****.
Their LED's and Plasma's are reasonable, but I'll never touch their LCD's again.
Had them, sold them, put Bravias through the house. Sorted.
pcharles
Apr 15, 03:26 PM
Snow Lion? :rolleyes:
Everyone knows it will be Garfield!
Everyone knows it will be Garfield!
more...
chrmjenkins
Apr 22, 03:12 PM
Really? So the fact that they did not have laptops with mainstream mobile quad core CPUs before Sandy Bridge when every other computers manufacturer had them is "immaterial" now? With LTE it's the same story all over. After they finally get in a year or two you'll probably be able to say again that it's immaterial. I bet it's very material to those who want iPhone with LTE now. Another major problem here is that Apple sticks to having just one model of iPhone (CDMA vs GSM differences aside). As if all people wanted the same thing. They don't.
No, you're trying to bring attention Apple's lack of using the latest components as why they won't use LTE. That's not the case anymore. They use mobile quad cores now. Therefore, your argument is irrelevant. It doesn't matter what they used to do if their most recent action is different. You need a complete history of them not doing it to support your point. That history doesn't exist.
Apple has no interest in making different sizes/models of iPhones. If you don't care for that, apple isn't for you. They are a greatest common denominator company.
No, you're trying to bring attention Apple's lack of using the latest components as why they won't use LTE. That's not the case anymore. They use mobile quad cores now. Therefore, your argument is irrelevant. It doesn't matter what they used to do if their most recent action is different. You need a complete history of them not doing it to support your point. That history doesn't exist.
Apple has no interest in making different sizes/models of iPhones. If you don't care for that, apple isn't for you. They are a greatest common denominator company.
Brien
Mar 12, 03:49 PM
Me too, something is better than nothing.
That doesn't make the sting from last night any better though; whoever is running the Brea store really dropped the ball last night.
That doesn't make the sting from last night any better though; whoever is running the Brea store really dropped the ball last night.
more...
cmm
Aug 18, 03:29 PM
Still... meh.
Agreed. Where's the selling point?
Agreed. Where's the selling point?
The Final Cut
Apr 28, 04:41 PM
lol @ everyone that waited for the white iphone...
more...
rmhop81
Apr 26, 12:36 PM
You need the local drive anyway. Are you saying you will delete all your songs from your local drive once you put them in the cloud? Now that seems impractical.
so instead you're going to store them all on multiple machines? what do you think the cloud is for? lol
so instead you're going to store them all on multiple machines? what do you think the cloud is for? lol
HawaiiMacAddict
Apr 14, 03:49 AM
What if it's an actual Apple-branded TV? That's one of the latest rumors making the rounds, again :eek: Actually, if Apple did come out with their own HD (1080p) TV, I would be very interested in purchasing it. It would have TV built into it (of course), and therefore would be able to do everything TV can do, only without having to attach a set-top box to the TV. Additionally, since Apple is designing it, the new actual HDTV would be magical :D
I really don't see Apple making an HDTV, but I've been known to be wrong before (although I don't like to admit it :o).
I really don't see Apple making an HDTV, but I've been known to be wrong before (although I don't like to admit it :o).
more...
kas23
Apr 26, 04:12 PM
THIS IS NOT GOING TO BE ABOUT STREAMING. It is going to be about smart syncing media across Macs & iOS devices. You wont delete all your music on your phone or Mac BUT you wont have to have all of it stored locally to have access to all of it. This is going to be how Apple transitions Macs to Flash storage but still allows one to have gigantic iTunes and iPhoto and iMovie libraries. Same with phones and iPads.
This isn't about streaming? So, if I'm driving down I-95 with no music stored locally on my iPhone, how do you expect my iPhone to play my music? Magic, like what the iPad runs on?
This isn't about streaming? So, if I'm driving down I-95 with no music stored locally on my iPhone, how do you expect my iPhone to play my music? Magic, like what the iPad runs on?
philr5150
Apr 13, 01:53 PM
Yay. Something new to jailbreak. Just what we needed.
marksman
Apr 12, 11:24 AM
The iPhone 4 will still be the best smartphone on the market when the iPhone 5 comes out.
Holding it back makes a lot of sense at this point.
Holding it back makes a lot of sense at this point.
jtara
Apr 14, 11:14 AM
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.
There's no need to emulate ARM instructions, though. And they already do emulate all of the complete iOS devices, at least sufficiently to run iOS apps on OSX.
Apple provides developers with a complete emulation package for testing their iOS apps on OSX. Apps are cross-compiled to x86 code. They also provide the complete set of iOS SDKs, cross-compiled to X86 code.
An emulator handles the device hardware - touchscreen, display, sound system, GPS (REALLY simple emulation - it's always sunny in Mountain View...), etc. If an iPhone or iPad are attached via USB cable, the emulator can even use the accelerometer and gyroscope in the device. Obviously, this could be easily changed to use some new peripheral device.
Other than device emulation, the apps suffer no loss of speed, since they are running native x86 code. In fact, they run considerably faster (ignoring, for this discussion, device emulation) than then do on an actual iOS device.
All Apple would need to give consumers the ability to run iOS apps on their Macs would be to provide them with the emulator (or, more likely, integrate it into the OSX desktop. I think end-users would find the picture of an iPhone or iPad that the emulator draws around the "screen" cute for a couple of days, but then quickly tire of it...), and add an additional target for developers.
What we've seen certainly seems to suggest that's what this is. HOWEVER:
1. For a single app to be compatible with both ARM and x86, they would need to introduce a "fat binary" similar to what they did with the transition from PowerPC to x86. This would bloat apps that are compatible with both to double their current download size. Current Universal (iPhone/iPad) apps are NOT fat binaries. They have multiple sets of resources (images, screen layouts, etc.) and the code needs to have multiple behaviors depending on the device. i.e. the code has to check "is this an iPad? If so do this...
Currently, developers have to create separate binaries for use on the emulator or the actual device.
2. Several developers have checked-in here to say that their apps are listed this way. None have offered that they had any advance knowledge of this, or did anything to make it happen. If this is about ARM/x86 fat binaries, the developer would have had to build their app that way. And even if it didn't require a re-build, I think it's highly unlikely that Apple would start selling apps on a new platform without letting the developers know!
3. Apple is *reasonably* fair about giving all developers access to new technology at the same time. They also generally make a public announcement at the same time as making beta SDKs available to developers. (Though the public announcement may be limited in scope and vague.) There are so many developers, that despite confidentiality agreements, most of the details get out to the public pretty quickly, though perhaps in muddled form. While Apple DOES hand-pick developers for early-early access, it's typically not THAT early. A few weeks, max.
I do think that an x86 target for iOS apps is inevitable. Just not imminent.
My best guess is that this was a screw-up by the web-site developers. Perhaps they did a mockup of the app store for the marketing people, selected some apps or app categories that seemed likely candidates, and slipped-up and it went live on the real app store.
There's no need to emulate ARM instructions, though. And they already do emulate all of the complete iOS devices, at least sufficiently to run iOS apps on OSX.
Apple provides developers with a complete emulation package for testing their iOS apps on OSX. Apps are cross-compiled to x86 code. They also provide the complete set of iOS SDKs, cross-compiled to X86 code.
An emulator handles the device hardware - touchscreen, display, sound system, GPS (REALLY simple emulation - it's always sunny in Mountain View...), etc. If an iPhone or iPad are attached via USB cable, the emulator can even use the accelerometer and gyroscope in the device. Obviously, this could be easily changed to use some new peripheral device.
Other than device emulation, the apps suffer no loss of speed, since they are running native x86 code. In fact, they run considerably faster (ignoring, for this discussion, device emulation) than then do on an actual iOS device.
All Apple would need to give consumers the ability to run iOS apps on their Macs would be to provide them with the emulator (or, more likely, integrate it into the OSX desktop. I think end-users would find the picture of an iPhone or iPad that the emulator draws around the "screen" cute for a couple of days, but then quickly tire of it...), and add an additional target for developers.
What we've seen certainly seems to suggest that's what this is. HOWEVER:
1. For a single app to be compatible with both ARM and x86, they would need to introduce a "fat binary" similar to what they did with the transition from PowerPC to x86. This would bloat apps that are compatible with both to double their current download size. Current Universal (iPhone/iPad) apps are NOT fat binaries. They have multiple sets of resources (images, screen layouts, etc.) and the code needs to have multiple behaviors depending on the device. i.e. the code has to check "is this an iPad? If so do this...
Currently, developers have to create separate binaries for use on the emulator or the actual device.
2. Several developers have checked-in here to say that their apps are listed this way. None have offered that they had any advance knowledge of this, or did anything to make it happen. If this is about ARM/x86 fat binaries, the developer would have had to build their app that way. And even if it didn't require a re-build, I think it's highly unlikely that Apple would start selling apps on a new platform without letting the developers know!
3. Apple is *reasonably* fair about giving all developers access to new technology at the same time. They also generally make a public announcement at the same time as making beta SDKs available to developers. (Though the public announcement may be limited in scope and vague.) There are so many developers, that despite confidentiality agreements, most of the details get out to the public pretty quickly, though perhaps in muddled form. While Apple DOES hand-pick developers for early-early access, it's typically not THAT early. A few weeks, max.
I do think that an x86 target for iOS apps is inevitable. Just not imminent.
My best guess is that this was a screw-up by the web-site developers. Perhaps they did a mockup of the app store for the marketing people, selected some apps or app categories that seemed likely candidates, and slipped-up and it went live on the real app store.
dextertangocci
Oct 23, 10:18 AM
As if that's going to stop people. Most people don't even know about these usage restrictions.
Exactly. No one give a ****.
Exactly. No one give a ****.
ghall
Apr 29, 03:06 PM
considering that amazon sells mp3 format and apple sells their non-universal format, it still doesn't matter to me. Until apple gets real and starts selling MP3s I will continue to buy from amazon. But I guess they don't care.
Basically any modern media device can play MP4 which is what Apple uses on it's store. For example I can put music purchased from iTunes on my Android phone with no coversion at all.
Basically any modern media device can play MP4 which is what Apple uses on it's store. For example I can put music purchased from iTunes on my Android phone with no coversion at all.
Daveway
Jul 24, 08:44 PM
I can see many first time user scratching their heads on this kind of design.
malana
Apr 8, 01:25 PM
i live here sometimes. view from my terrace.
http://666kb.com/i/bsgzn0gpn55lrnajn.jpg
http://666kb.com/i/bsgzn0gpn55lrnajn.jpg
No comments:
Post a Comment