roland.g
Aug 2, 11:16 AM
what is the date for MW Paris?
goMac
Apr 21, 09:48 PM
doubtful, this is a key switcher market... it would be crazy to axe the very thing that will continue to switch the PC builders/gamers over the next 5 years... this is a key ingredient to apple taking the industry over with time.
My sarcasm must not have been obvious enough. :)
My sarcasm must not have been obvious enough. :)
ChazUK
Apr 26, 02:37 PM
And there's a huge difference between a 17" Macbook Pro and a 11" Macbook Air.
But they both get counted as laptops, don't they?
And what's your reasoning for why iPods don't get counted here? Because they don't have monthly contracts? How does that make sense? Should we only count iMac sales if they're hooked up to a monthly ISP or something?
I know for one there is a massive difference between my Xoom and Nexus S.
One is used for calls, is portable, and isn't a tablet.
The other is bulker, unable to make calls and is a tablet.
Phones, mp3 players and tablets all have different uses, functions and form factors which differentiates them enough imo.
But they both get counted as laptops, don't they?
And what's your reasoning for why iPods don't get counted here? Because they don't have monthly contracts? How does that make sense? Should we only count iMac sales if they're hooked up to a monthly ISP or something?
I know for one there is a massive difference between my Xoom and Nexus S.
One is used for calls, is portable, and isn't a tablet.
The other is bulker, unable to make calls and is a tablet.
Phones, mp3 players and tablets all have different uses, functions and form factors which differentiates them enough imo.
ariza910
Sep 10, 11:48 PM
this event is going to be simulcast in LONDON. Does this mean that movies will be able to be purchased by folks in the UK??? as far as I know you still cant purchased TV shows sold through iTunes in the UK:confused:
Strange Apple would work out US and UK movie distribution deals at the same time.
Strange Apple would work out US and UK movie distribution deals at the same time.
citizenzen
Apr 18, 06:46 PM
I feel like I'm just repeating myself. I've already addressed that capital gains is not necessarily income.
Yet you haven't convinced many here. Doesn't that indicate that perhaps you need to address it again, and perhaps find other ways to illustrate your point? It's not like I'm unwilling to be convinced. I just haven't heard a good reason to accept your argument.
Yet you haven't convinced many here. Doesn't that indicate that perhaps you need to address it again, and perhaps find other ways to illustrate your point? It's not like I'm unwilling to be convinced. I just haven't heard a good reason to accept your argument.
vincenz
Apr 20, 08:56 AM
Well, all the huge news outlets are saying the same thing, so it's most likely true. I won't be upgrading until the 6 then.
kalsta
May 5, 03:22 PM
You're not stepping out onto the moon this time.
Talking about the cost of swtiching, I might just add� Stepping out onto the moon cost a pretty penny too. I guess beating the Soviets to bragging rights in space was more important than implementing common sense on the ground.
Ultimately I think it comes down to the fact that the US is one of the few countries that had a great deal of popular sovereignty determine the outcome of whether or not we should switch to the metric system. � Americans also tend not to have a great deal of respect for the sciences (scientific literacy is appallingly low) so it makes it a tougher pitch to the everyday person.
Hang on� You're not distancing yourself from the illiterate masses now? I thought you agreed with them? ;)
Not to mention that Australia in the 1970s was 13 million people, or about 24 times smaller than the current US population.
Well, I assume the US population ain't getting any smaller the longer you put it off.
Talking about the cost of swtiching, I might just add� Stepping out onto the moon cost a pretty penny too. I guess beating the Soviets to bragging rights in space was more important than implementing common sense on the ground.
Ultimately I think it comes down to the fact that the US is one of the few countries that had a great deal of popular sovereignty determine the outcome of whether or not we should switch to the metric system. � Americans also tend not to have a great deal of respect for the sciences (scientific literacy is appallingly low) so it makes it a tougher pitch to the everyday person.
Hang on� You're not distancing yourself from the illiterate masses now? I thought you agreed with them? ;)
Not to mention that Australia in the 1970s was 13 million people, or about 24 times smaller than the current US population.
Well, I assume the US population ain't getting any smaller the longer you put it off.
poppe
Aug 4, 12:04 AM
Please apple what ever you do. Don't leave me stuck with a Merom MBP at 2.16... we need the 2.33!!
Multimedia
Sep 16, 12:19 AM
If you really want longer battery life, then you should be hoping to keep the X1600. It's regarded as having the best "performance per watt" of recent mobile GPUs.I'd rather have a bigger battery and a Go 7700. I've not seen any decent figures for power draw on the mobile chips. The 7700 is manufactured on an 80nm process tho', so that should help some.
Whichever uses less battery power is what I would prefer as long as it can still drive a 30" ACD or Dell when it's plugged into AC.Personally, I hope (well, pipe dream actually) they'll make MBP build-to-order like Mac Pro. I'd downgrade the CPU to the 2.0GHz version. It wholesales for $130 less than the 2.16, and $340 less than the 2.33. That's way too much to pay for a fractional speed increase.
OTOH, the 2.0 Xeon is $370 less than the 2.66 and Apple only cuts the price $75 for two of them. That's robbery. So I guess MBP BTO probably wouldn't help me even if they did it.The 2GHz downgrade is $300 not $75. Where did you get that number? Apple probably pays a lot less for each so this discount seems fair to me. Seems to me the down and up grade Mac Pro processor pricing is geard to steer buyers to the 2.66GHz model. I don't agree with you Apple is stealing anything from any of us. I think your use of the word "robbery" is not appropriate expecially since your figure of $75 is a flat out fabrication of your imagination. :rolleyes:Bear in mind custom options effectively "cost" Apple a lot more due to requiring special attention in a way the rest of the line doesn't. More so with the laptop line due to the processor being socketted rather than soldered.Dyslexia at work. Laptop processors are directly soldered to the LB to keep the profile slim, iMacs & minis socketed.Personally, I think the 2.33GHz part price is insane considering the small speed-bump, but that's up to Apple.While I agree the 2.33GHz upgrades are too expensive on the iMac, I expect the 2.33GHz will be the standard part in both the 15" and 17" top MBP models - no doubt on the 17". Who knows, Apple's cost per 2.33 may even drop every 30 days or so in their contract with Intel.
Whichever uses less battery power is what I would prefer as long as it can still drive a 30" ACD or Dell when it's plugged into AC.Personally, I hope (well, pipe dream actually) they'll make MBP build-to-order like Mac Pro. I'd downgrade the CPU to the 2.0GHz version. It wholesales for $130 less than the 2.16, and $340 less than the 2.33. That's way too much to pay for a fractional speed increase.
OTOH, the 2.0 Xeon is $370 less than the 2.66 and Apple only cuts the price $75 for two of them. That's robbery. So I guess MBP BTO probably wouldn't help me even if they did it.The 2GHz downgrade is $300 not $75. Where did you get that number? Apple probably pays a lot less for each so this discount seems fair to me. Seems to me the down and up grade Mac Pro processor pricing is geard to steer buyers to the 2.66GHz model. I don't agree with you Apple is stealing anything from any of us. I think your use of the word "robbery" is not appropriate expecially since your figure of $75 is a flat out fabrication of your imagination. :rolleyes:Bear in mind custom options effectively "cost" Apple a lot more due to requiring special attention in a way the rest of the line doesn't. More so with the laptop line due to the processor being socketted rather than soldered.Dyslexia at work. Laptop processors are directly soldered to the LB to keep the profile slim, iMacs & minis socketed.Personally, I think the 2.33GHz part price is insane considering the small speed-bump, but that's up to Apple.While I agree the 2.33GHz upgrades are too expensive on the iMac, I expect the 2.33GHz will be the standard part in both the 15" and 17" top MBP models - no doubt on the 17". Who knows, Apple's cost per 2.33 may even drop every 30 days or so in their contract with Intel.
jayhawk11
May 4, 02:54 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.
PygmySurfer
Apr 7, 09:34 AM
So, what is Apple doing with a bunch of 7" touch screens, since Jobs said "7 inch tablets are dead on arrival"?
I also don't recall RIM ever giving a date before April 19th.
I also don't recall RIM ever giving a date before April 19th.
LouieSamman
Apr 20, 01:25 AM
So many has bought an iPhone 4. At&t and Verzion.
We all are on a 2 year contract.
This being a spec update only people still with the 3GS or huge fanboys would buy the iPhone 5.
So I wonder that maybe this new iPhone coming out won't be great on sales.
iPhone 6th generation is where it's at. Many iPhone 4 users, fanboys, and those still with their 3G or 3GS iPhones would grab the iPhone 6. Sale numbers would be high.
I am a fanboy of Apple but in being a college student I have to watch the money I spent and spending the extra cash to update to a new iPhone while on a 2 year contract isn't a wise choice for me.
I first would need to see how much the upgrade to a new iPhone would cost me with my 2 year contract. Since it has been a year, the cost probably went down.
What would entice me to get the iPhone 5 is if the upgrade fee isn't too bad, the iPhone 5 has a spectacular camera, and a huge noticeable difference in speed.
I'm getting iOS 5 whether I get the iPhone 5 or not since I have an iPhone 4 and that could be ideal for me until the iPhone 6 comes out but I will have to wait and see on the iPhone 5.
I believe many people is thinking the same way as I am.
We all are on a 2 year contract.
This being a spec update only people still with the 3GS or huge fanboys would buy the iPhone 5.
So I wonder that maybe this new iPhone coming out won't be great on sales.
iPhone 6th generation is where it's at. Many iPhone 4 users, fanboys, and those still with their 3G or 3GS iPhones would grab the iPhone 6. Sale numbers would be high.
I am a fanboy of Apple but in being a college student I have to watch the money I spent and spending the extra cash to update to a new iPhone while on a 2 year contract isn't a wise choice for me.
I first would need to see how much the upgrade to a new iPhone would cost me with my 2 year contract. Since it has been a year, the cost probably went down.
What would entice me to get the iPhone 5 is if the upgrade fee isn't too bad, the iPhone 5 has a spectacular camera, and a huge noticeable difference in speed.
I'm getting iOS 5 whether I get the iPhone 5 or not since I have an iPhone 4 and that could be ideal for me until the iPhone 6 comes out but I will have to wait and see on the iPhone 5.
I believe many people is thinking the same way as I am.
SirHaakon
Mar 30, 12:25 AM
I really do like the concept of having an enormous amount of online storage, immediately accessible from anywhere.. but ultimately I see this as an issue of me having to pay someone else for granting access to things I already own.
So that storage unit you have filled with couches and tennis rackets and old baseball cards... that should be free as well?
Let's be reasonable here. They have to buy drives (multiple drives, because clearly they need redundancy and backup) to put your music on and they have to pay for the bandwidth to pipe it out to you. I hardly think $1 for 20 gigabytes of available anywhere storage is very unreasonable.
Do you like paying a fee to your bank when you take out YOUR OWN MONEY from the bank?
No, of course not... but that's different. They aren't storing physical cash somewhere anymore, it's all just a line of electronic code that states what your balance is. Why should anyone have to pay for that? And before you tell me that digital music is just 1s and 0s too, you're right - and that's why Amazon gives you 5 gigs free. If you want more, obviously there's a cost involved. They can't support millions of customers each wanting a terabyte of storage for nothing.
Remember when television was free? We just had to put up with advertisements, and for that, we got free TV. Now many people pay 79 bucks a month or more to get cable or satellite TV.
Nothing has changed. Over-the-air broadcasts are still available for free. It's called an antenna. They may seem quaint, but Best Buy still sells them. If you want premium content, you pay for it.
Of course companies like Amazon and Apple are not in it for your convenience, they're in it because if everyone eventually has all their files stored online in the cloud, there's TONS and TONS of money to be made- for ever. If I have a computer, phone or music listening device with ample amounts of storage space, these companies don't make any money off of me after I purchase that music from itunes or wherever. (And if I have cds or blu ray movies, they don't make any money on me at all). This cloud concept provides some convenience, but more importantly guarantees a steady flow of income for these companies for many years to come.
Well first of all, if you buy a Blu-ray disc from Amazon, they're still taking their cut. So saying they make "no money at all" from that is inaccurate. But again, they are offering you physical storage space that is available 24/7 from wherever you are. Why would you expect that to be free? That's just a ridiculous mentality. The prices they're asking aren't very expensive, either. How much do you spend on your cable bill every month? Your phone bill? People just think it's ridiculous to spend money on music because avenues have popped up where you can get it for free. (Why buy the CD when I can just watch it on YouTube?). Just because something is available somewhere for free doesn't mean it's worthless. Amazon is providing a service. That service comes with a fee. If you don't think it's worth it, don't buy it... but I think your expectations are pretty misplaced.
Flash memory storage capacities are growing yearly.. and prices are continuing to drop. Now companies are starting to ship secure digital cards with capacities of a staggering 128 GB on a tiny compact flash card! Ultimately I think most people will be able to have enormous amounts of files locally on their own phone or portable computer.
Sure they can. That isn't the point of this, though. I have 2 computers at home, a laptop, a phone that has storage, a DVR, even my Xbox can store music files. But what a pain in the ass it is to share between them all. Do I want to use up 80 gigs of my laptop's internal drive just to take all of my music with me when I travel? Do I want duplicate copies of everything I own on all of these different devices just to make sure the one thing I'm looking for at any particular moment is there no matter what? Good grief, no. Yes of course I will keep A backup of all of my files on a local system - I'm not trusting anything ONLY to the cloud - but now there's a way to access my music (or any other kind of file, for that matter) wherever I go, quickly and easily. Sure, it's not much different than dropbox except that it's cheaper and less complicated. How nice to be able to visit my parents, or go on vacation, or be at a friend's house, log on to their computer, and have my entire music library instantly available at my fingertips. It makes a lot of sense to me.
So that storage unit you have filled with couches and tennis rackets and old baseball cards... that should be free as well?
Let's be reasonable here. They have to buy drives (multiple drives, because clearly they need redundancy and backup) to put your music on and they have to pay for the bandwidth to pipe it out to you. I hardly think $1 for 20 gigabytes of available anywhere storage is very unreasonable.
Do you like paying a fee to your bank when you take out YOUR OWN MONEY from the bank?
No, of course not... but that's different. They aren't storing physical cash somewhere anymore, it's all just a line of electronic code that states what your balance is. Why should anyone have to pay for that? And before you tell me that digital music is just 1s and 0s too, you're right - and that's why Amazon gives you 5 gigs free. If you want more, obviously there's a cost involved. They can't support millions of customers each wanting a terabyte of storage for nothing.
Remember when television was free? We just had to put up with advertisements, and for that, we got free TV. Now many people pay 79 bucks a month or more to get cable or satellite TV.
Nothing has changed. Over-the-air broadcasts are still available for free. It's called an antenna. They may seem quaint, but Best Buy still sells them. If you want premium content, you pay for it.
Of course companies like Amazon and Apple are not in it for your convenience, they're in it because if everyone eventually has all their files stored online in the cloud, there's TONS and TONS of money to be made- for ever. If I have a computer, phone or music listening device with ample amounts of storage space, these companies don't make any money off of me after I purchase that music from itunes or wherever. (And if I have cds or blu ray movies, they don't make any money on me at all). This cloud concept provides some convenience, but more importantly guarantees a steady flow of income for these companies for many years to come.
Well first of all, if you buy a Blu-ray disc from Amazon, they're still taking their cut. So saying they make "no money at all" from that is inaccurate. But again, they are offering you physical storage space that is available 24/7 from wherever you are. Why would you expect that to be free? That's just a ridiculous mentality. The prices they're asking aren't very expensive, either. How much do you spend on your cable bill every month? Your phone bill? People just think it's ridiculous to spend money on music because avenues have popped up where you can get it for free. (Why buy the CD when I can just watch it on YouTube?). Just because something is available somewhere for free doesn't mean it's worthless. Amazon is providing a service. That service comes with a fee. If you don't think it's worth it, don't buy it... but I think your expectations are pretty misplaced.
Flash memory storage capacities are growing yearly.. and prices are continuing to drop. Now companies are starting to ship secure digital cards with capacities of a staggering 128 GB on a tiny compact flash card! Ultimately I think most people will be able to have enormous amounts of files locally on their own phone or portable computer.
Sure they can. That isn't the point of this, though. I have 2 computers at home, a laptop, a phone that has storage, a DVR, even my Xbox can store music files. But what a pain in the ass it is to share between them all. Do I want to use up 80 gigs of my laptop's internal drive just to take all of my music with me when I travel? Do I want duplicate copies of everything I own on all of these different devices just to make sure the one thing I'm looking for at any particular moment is there no matter what? Good grief, no. Yes of course I will keep A backup of all of my files on a local system - I'm not trusting anything ONLY to the cloud - but now there's a way to access my music (or any other kind of file, for that matter) wherever I go, quickly and easily. Sure, it's not much different than dropbox except that it's cheaper and less complicated. How nice to be able to visit my parents, or go on vacation, or be at a friend's house, log on to their computer, and have my entire music library instantly available at my fingertips. It makes a lot of sense to me.
bassfingers
Apr 22, 11:47 AM
It would be a lot harder to cheat a value added tax than income tax.
Plus it would take no time or money to fill out
it would naturally put a larger burden on the rich who spend more
it would be simple to raise/lower
It would naturally exempt charitable giving
it would reduce the tax-code a few thousand pages
It would reduce the need to pay to keep up the IRS program
nobody would be in debt to the IRS
Payroll taxes would be easier to manage
My dad spends two full weeks, and hire personal assistants in order to file taxes as it is. Value added tax instead of income tax would be a blessing
or even a less complicated flat income tax rate would be an improvement
Plus it would take no time or money to fill out
it would naturally put a larger burden on the rich who spend more
it would be simple to raise/lower
It would naturally exempt charitable giving
it would reduce the tax-code a few thousand pages
It would reduce the need to pay to keep up the IRS program
nobody would be in debt to the IRS
Payroll taxes would be easier to manage
My dad spends two full weeks, and hire personal assistants in order to file taxes as it is. Value added tax instead of income tax would be a blessing
or even a less complicated flat income tax rate would be an improvement
wizard
Mar 27, 12:02 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
I just don't understand the thought of an iPad 3 this fall. Unless they're trying to line up iPad updates with iPod updates, I don't see how this is possible or even really needed. I like the timing of the current releases. It offsets any updates of iPhones and iPods because they all have different release times.
Having iOS 5 this fall does make sense, honestly.
Everyone assumes that iPad 3 is a direct upgrade/replacement for iPad 2. This doesn't have to be the case at all. If it is even real, it could be any number of things, it could be sub seven inch, a thirteen inch machine, a machine that supports 4G and Retina or any number of other configurations.
I have no doubt in my mind that Apple will eventually deliver iPads in sizes other than the current model. It only makes sense as it offers solutions for people with different needs. However such a machine (a smaller iPad) needs lower power hardware than what is seen in ipad 2. I believe that hardware is coming for iPhone 5 to allow for the performance boost without killing the battery.
I just don't understand the thought of an iPad 3 this fall. Unless they're trying to line up iPad updates with iPod updates, I don't see how this is possible or even really needed. I like the timing of the current releases. It offsets any updates of iPhones and iPods because they all have different release times.
Having iOS 5 this fall does make sense, honestly.
Everyone assumes that iPad 3 is a direct upgrade/replacement for iPad 2. This doesn't have to be the case at all. If it is even real, it could be any number of things, it could be sub seven inch, a thirteen inch machine, a machine that supports 4G and Retina or any number of other configurations.
I have no doubt in my mind that Apple will eventually deliver iPads in sizes other than the current model. It only makes sense as it offers solutions for people with different needs. However such a machine (a smaller iPad) needs lower power hardware than what is seen in ipad 2. I believe that hardware is coming for iPhone 5 to allow for the performance boost without killing the battery.
Popeye206
Apr 20, 08:07 AM
It's not like me to pass on any Apple product upgrade but if the next iPhone is the exact same form factor and screen size with a camera upgrade, an A5 chip and 1 GB of ram, I'm passing.
I use that money for a second iMac.
Unless there's something in it not expected, I'll probably pass too.
But not because I don't think the rumored upgrades would be great... just because my current iPhone4 works great and I'm assuming iOS5 will bring lots of new toys to iPhone4 and 5 customers. So why spend the money?
However, I have yet to spend more than the original money I spent for the iPhone 1. Every upgrade for me has been free as I've been able to sell my previous phone for the $200 needed to upgrade. So, no skin off my bones.
I use that money for a second iMac.
Unless there's something in it not expected, I'll probably pass too.
But not because I don't think the rumored upgrades would be great... just because my current iPhone4 works great and I'm assuming iOS5 will bring lots of new toys to iPhone4 and 5 customers. So why spend the money?
However, I have yet to spend more than the original money I spent for the iPhone 1. Every upgrade for me has been free as I've been able to sell my previous phone for the $200 needed to upgrade. So, no skin off my bones.
eb6
Sep 11, 08:39 AM
Why is it so hard to believe Apple will add movies to iTunes? They already added short films and TV shows.
Alex Urchin
Nov 22, 01:22 AM
Wasn't it exactly the same story with the iPod?
fraggot
Apr 25, 11:20 AM
Go to any Apple website and check the published specs for iPhone 4/3Gs or iPad with 3Gs. Here's a link to help with that:
http://www.apple.com/ca/channel/iphone/iphone-4/tour/specs.html
You will see that Apple does not just offer GPS, it offers "Assisted" GPS. Here we once again see Apple's zeal to optimize. The location cache that's causing all the fuss is what provides the "Assist". Some secret.
When you are moving about, your device notes and identifies cell towers that come in range. It gathers their identification, which initially does not include location. It then further queries a database to get the location info. The location is associated with that tower ID, and the two together are stored in the "notorious" cache.
When a device owner seeks to use GPS the program assists by instantly getting a preliminary location fix by accessing cell ID and location info in the cache. Without the cache, it would have to seek the cell tower location info first, so the existence of the cache speeds the finding of preliminary location info. That info is used to speed up the tracking and locking-on of the device to the GPS satellite.
So, the cache exists to enable a faster GPS lock.
Sinister?
No, but maybe a bit sloppy, I don't know enough to be able to say for sure. Maybe Apple should only log and locate a tower once, which would limit the adding of current data. Maybe the file should always be encrypted.
I suspect we will find out, because legislators in the US and Europe have become involved and this trivial-seeming issue won't go away.
But, with regard to the Steve Jobs email, it does seem clear that Apple is collecting no information. Apple may once again be the victim of it's zeal to optimize features.
And again this, Assisted GPS does not mean it doesn't have a GPS AGAIN.
Assisted GPS means it has a GPS but is also Assisted by the cell towers to get a location faster. Most GPS devices use Assisted GPS for speed and accuracy anymore.
http://www.apple.com/ca/channel/iphone/iphone-4/tour/specs.html
You will see that Apple does not just offer GPS, it offers "Assisted" GPS. Here we once again see Apple's zeal to optimize. The location cache that's causing all the fuss is what provides the "Assist". Some secret.
When you are moving about, your device notes and identifies cell towers that come in range. It gathers their identification, which initially does not include location. It then further queries a database to get the location info. The location is associated with that tower ID, and the two together are stored in the "notorious" cache.
When a device owner seeks to use GPS the program assists by instantly getting a preliminary location fix by accessing cell ID and location info in the cache. Without the cache, it would have to seek the cell tower location info first, so the existence of the cache speeds the finding of preliminary location info. That info is used to speed up the tracking and locking-on of the device to the GPS satellite.
So, the cache exists to enable a faster GPS lock.
Sinister?
No, but maybe a bit sloppy, I don't know enough to be able to say for sure. Maybe Apple should only log and locate a tower once, which would limit the adding of current data. Maybe the file should always be encrypted.
I suspect we will find out, because legislators in the US and Europe have become involved and this trivial-seeming issue won't go away.
But, with regard to the Steve Jobs email, it does seem clear that Apple is collecting no information. Apple may once again be the victim of it's zeal to optimize features.
And again this, Assisted GPS does not mean it doesn't have a GPS AGAIN.
Assisted GPS means it has a GPS but is also Assisted by the cell towers to get a location faster. Most GPS devices use Assisted GPS for speed and accuracy anymore.
esaleris
Aug 11, 09:49 AM
I think to the end user, the difference between Yonah and Merom is minimal.
From a supply chain perspective, it is far easier to manage one SKU than multiple ones. You immediately half the number of CPUs that you need to stock by moving all mobile to Merom. And give the fact that some speculate the price between the two CPUs are minimal, and that Apple is a premium brand, it wouldn't be a far reach to see that it is quite advantageous for them to move onto better hardware and keep the price as is.
It's a speed bump, if anything. Not something Apple typically makes a big fuss about, despite the fact we know it's two different cores. Yonah -> Merom is a far smaller ordeal than Merom -> Santa Rosa.
From a supply chain perspective, it is far easier to manage one SKU than multiple ones. You immediately half the number of CPUs that you need to stock by moving all mobile to Merom. And give the fact that some speculate the price between the two CPUs are minimal, and that Apple is a premium brand, it wouldn't be a far reach to see that it is quite advantageous for them to move onto better hardware and keep the price as is.
It's a speed bump, if anything. Not something Apple typically makes a big fuss about, despite the fact we know it's two different cores. Yonah -> Merom is a far smaller ordeal than Merom -> Santa Rosa.
BruiserBear
Apr 20, 08:18 AM
I'm really surprised Apple would wait an additional 3 months to update their phone. It seems like this market is getting more competitive by the quarter, and giving the competition another 3 months to catch up just seems like a bad idea.
Especially when the update isn't even that big. It would be one thing if this was an entirely new design.
Maybe the delay is entirely related to the Japanese earthquake.
Especially when the update isn't even that big. It would be one thing if this was an entirely new design.
Maybe the delay is entirely related to the Japanese earthquake.
nidserz
Apr 10, 02:14 AM
You didn't enter it properly then...
Here
280594
The thing about this question is, whats the point of the parentheses..
Here
280594
The thing about this question is, whats the point of the parentheses..
maclaptop
Apr 26, 02:12 PM
Who cares? I thought this was macrumors not android news...
Android scares the hell out of Apple :eek:
Android scares the hell out of Apple :eek:
shurcooL
Apr 24, 12:03 AM
You could argue that when they pump all consumer Mac resolutions up to the limit of human perception, resolution independence becomes sort of moot.
Almost, but not quite. Full resolution independence would allow you to change the scale/size of UI elements. Even if you can't see the pixels, some people may prefer smaller or larger "virtual" resolutions.
Almost, but not quite. Full resolution independence would allow you to change the scale/size of UI elements. Even if you can't see the pixels, some people may prefer smaller or larger "virtual" resolutions.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar