beethovengirl
Feb 21, 09:50 PM
A very sad video of Steve Jobs has been posted online. I already feel like an evil voyeur for viewing it, so I don't want to link to it...but I'm almost in tears.
Actually, I see it's already being discussed on MacRumors:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1100220
Actually, I see it's already being discussed on MacRumors:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1100220
Andrmgic
Apr 16, 06:13 PM
They should post a policy and ****ing stick to it, no special cases or exceptions.. NONE of this "because we felt like it" ********.
They need to post EVERY SINGLE REQUIREMENT in plain language and say explicitly which of the published policies the app did not meet and give an explanation as to why.
This kind of stuff is nothing but bad press for them, especially with all of the public backpedaling they've been doing when they reject someone with the attention of the media.
Also, They should not be able to deny developers access to certain APIs in order to keep their own products more competitive. (pinch to expand for that photo app that got rejected, in-app brightness control, etc.)
If Apple can't compete on their own programming and design merits, then they shouldn't be releasing applications in the store.
They need to post EVERY SINGLE REQUIREMENT in plain language and say explicitly which of the published policies the app did not meet and give an explanation as to why.
This kind of stuff is nothing but bad press for them, especially with all of the public backpedaling they've been doing when they reject someone with the attention of the media.
Also, They should not be able to deny developers access to certain APIs in order to keep their own products more competitive. (pinch to expand for that photo app that got rejected, in-app brightness control, etc.)
If Apple can't compete on their own programming and design merits, then they shouldn't be releasing applications in the store.
hyperpasta
Oct 16, 04:16 PM
"iPhone"
"iPhone Pro"
Sounds about right.
"iPhone Pro"
Sounds about right.
SandynJosh
Apr 13, 02:44 AM
The 3G graph just shows how ignorant people are when choosing between ATT and Verizon.
ATT has the fastest 3G network
ATT has GSM, the standard chipset around the globe
Dropped calls and data plan are not the same thing
All this equals that people are ignorant
Maybe more people live in areas where Verizon has better coverage. There's a map for that, you know.
ATT has the fastest 3G network
ATT has GSM, the standard chipset around the globe
Dropped calls and data plan are not the same thing
All this equals that people are ignorant
Maybe more people live in areas where Verizon has better coverage. There's a map for that, you know.
more...
davidjearly
Dec 18, 11:03 AM
But that's just the thing, it's not serious. At least I don't think so. A bigger deal has been made of it in this thread talking to you than any other place I've encountered. How's that for irony?
Well I've not yet appeared in the news. Note that when I talk about the rebellious crowd, I'm referring to more than just you and the peopl in this thread. There has been a total overreaction to it in the news and by 'celebrities' over the country. In any case, that's not irony.
Some time in the future when past christmas number ones are played I'll get a little smile when I hear 2009's.
I sincerely hope not. I'd rather have anything other than a poor metal track being played continually on the radio over the festive period.
Well I've not yet appeared in the news. Note that when I talk about the rebellious crowd, I'm referring to more than just you and the peopl in this thread. There has been a total overreaction to it in the news and by 'celebrities' over the country. In any case, that's not irony.
Some time in the future when past christmas number ones are played I'll get a little smile when I hear 2009's.
I sincerely hope not. I'd rather have anything other than a poor metal track being played continually on the radio over the festive period.
BenRoethig
Oct 9, 03:54 PM
I don't think they have anything to fear for quite a while. iTunes movies downloads are the digital equivalent to UMD. It's cool for Apple to be able to sell a movie for your iPod, but I don't see the practical use yet. You can't watch it on your T.V. (without spending $300 on Apple's upcoming iTV), you can't burn it to DVD, watching it full screen on a Mac or PC is not going to be as crisp as on a T.V., and the extra features aren't there. Quite frankly really who wants to hold an iPod for 2-3 hours to watch a movie anyway? Apple is going to have to offer something more useful for this to really catch on.
more...
str1f3
Apr 17, 12:16 PM
The good news is that Apple's iPhone OS won't be the dominating mobile platform for much longer. The sales numbers show that Android is quickly gaining momentum, and Google's marketplace is not censored at all and developers can choose whatever development tool they want to produce software for Android.
Just because they went from 2.5% to 5.2% in the US means nothing. Apple is at 25%. It is a lot harder to get into the higher market. All that they've been showing is that they can take some of Palm and WM6 marketshare.
http://www.tipb.com/images/stories/2010/02/marketshare-comscore-400x282.png
Apple will soon fall back into that little niche where they came from. And they deserve it because of their megalomaniac behavior and arrogant attitude.
History is going to repeat itself because Apple hasn't learned from their mistakes in the past. They lost the desktop to Microsoft because Apple refused to open their platform to third parties. Now they will lose the mobile market to Google.
Do you mean history will repeat itself like the Mac/PC wars or like the iPod? Maybe I'm missing something when you say "They lost the desktop to Microsoft because Apple refused to open their platform to third parties" because what comes to my mind is ActiveX and DirectX.
The WePad is going to ship in July. Even if it might not be as sexy as the over-hyped iPad, it is an OPEN device. And in the end, the open platform will win.
You do realize that no one is really mentioning the WePad (lol) except pretty much Germany. Go look at the current success of the iPad. If you think you can just blow up Android apps and it will be just like the iPad you're fooling yourself.
As for your Android is "OPEN" comment, I don't think you know what "open" actually means.
Is Android Evil? (http://www.visionmobile.com/blog/2010/04/is-android-evil/)
1. Private branches. There are multiple, private codelines available to selected partners (typically the OEM working on an Android project) on a need-to-know basis only.
2. Closed review process. All code reviewers work for Google, meaning that Google is the only authority that can accept or reject a code submission from the community.
3. Speed of evolution. Google innovates the Android platform at a speed that�s unprecedented for the mobile industry, releasing 4 major updates (1.6 to 2.1) in 18 months. OEMs wanting to build on Android have no choice but to stay close to Google so as not to lose on new features/bug fixes released.
4. Incomplete software. The public SDK is by no means sufficient to build a handset. Key building blocks missing are radio integration, international language packs, operator packs � and of course Google�s closed source apps like Market, Gmail and GTalk.
5. Gated developer community. Android Market is the exclusive distribution and discovery channel for the 40,000+ apps created by developers; and is available to phone manufacturers on separate agreement.
6. Anti-fragmentation agreement. Little is known about the anti-fragmentation agreement signed by OHA members but we understand it�s a commitment to not release handsets which are not CTS compliant.
7. Private roadmap. The visibility offered into Android�s roadmap is pathetic. At the time of writing, the roadmap published publicly is a year out of date (Q1 2009). To get a sneak peak into the private roadmap you need Google�s blessing.
8. Android trademark. Google holds the trademark to the Android name; as a manufacturer you can only leverage on the Android branding with approval from Google.
On a more personal note: I do not need and I do not want Apple to tell me what I can read or see on my device. If I want to see naked flesh, then it's none of Apple's business and they have ZERO rights to deny me that. (I'm European - we're not prude here and we prefer sex over violence.) If I want to use software that directly competes with Apple's own offers, then obviously their competition is giving me something that I like better than Apple's software products.
As much as I like Apple's computers, I hate their entire AppStore and iPhone SDK policies with a passion.
What you want is a bigger walled garden. You are primarily to only use Google services on Android. I don't like the App Store policies but to simply put out that with Android "is all about choice" is naive. To use half the apps in the Android marketplace your phone has to be rooted (jailbroken).
Ultimately I'd like for Apple to allow third party apps to be downloaded outside of the App Store and can understand why Jobs doesn't want to offer questionable apps on iTunes.
Just because they went from 2.5% to 5.2% in the US means nothing. Apple is at 25%. It is a lot harder to get into the higher market. All that they've been showing is that they can take some of Palm and WM6 marketshare.
http://www.tipb.com/images/stories/2010/02/marketshare-comscore-400x282.png
Apple will soon fall back into that little niche where they came from. And they deserve it because of their megalomaniac behavior and arrogant attitude.
History is going to repeat itself because Apple hasn't learned from their mistakes in the past. They lost the desktop to Microsoft because Apple refused to open their platform to third parties. Now they will lose the mobile market to Google.
Do you mean history will repeat itself like the Mac/PC wars or like the iPod? Maybe I'm missing something when you say "They lost the desktop to Microsoft because Apple refused to open their platform to third parties" because what comes to my mind is ActiveX and DirectX.
The WePad is going to ship in July. Even if it might not be as sexy as the over-hyped iPad, it is an OPEN device. And in the end, the open platform will win.
You do realize that no one is really mentioning the WePad (lol) except pretty much Germany. Go look at the current success of the iPad. If you think you can just blow up Android apps and it will be just like the iPad you're fooling yourself.
As for your Android is "OPEN" comment, I don't think you know what "open" actually means.
Is Android Evil? (http://www.visionmobile.com/blog/2010/04/is-android-evil/)
1. Private branches. There are multiple, private codelines available to selected partners (typically the OEM working on an Android project) on a need-to-know basis only.
2. Closed review process. All code reviewers work for Google, meaning that Google is the only authority that can accept or reject a code submission from the community.
3. Speed of evolution. Google innovates the Android platform at a speed that�s unprecedented for the mobile industry, releasing 4 major updates (1.6 to 2.1) in 18 months. OEMs wanting to build on Android have no choice but to stay close to Google so as not to lose on new features/bug fixes released.
4. Incomplete software. The public SDK is by no means sufficient to build a handset. Key building blocks missing are radio integration, international language packs, operator packs � and of course Google�s closed source apps like Market, Gmail and GTalk.
5. Gated developer community. Android Market is the exclusive distribution and discovery channel for the 40,000+ apps created by developers; and is available to phone manufacturers on separate agreement.
6. Anti-fragmentation agreement. Little is known about the anti-fragmentation agreement signed by OHA members but we understand it�s a commitment to not release handsets which are not CTS compliant.
7. Private roadmap. The visibility offered into Android�s roadmap is pathetic. At the time of writing, the roadmap published publicly is a year out of date (Q1 2009). To get a sneak peak into the private roadmap you need Google�s blessing.
8. Android trademark. Google holds the trademark to the Android name; as a manufacturer you can only leverage on the Android branding with approval from Google.
On a more personal note: I do not need and I do not want Apple to tell me what I can read or see on my device. If I want to see naked flesh, then it's none of Apple's business and they have ZERO rights to deny me that. (I'm European - we're not prude here and we prefer sex over violence.) If I want to use software that directly competes with Apple's own offers, then obviously their competition is giving me something that I like better than Apple's software products.
As much as I like Apple's computers, I hate their entire AppStore and iPhone SDK policies with a passion.
What you want is a bigger walled garden. You are primarily to only use Google services on Android. I don't like the App Store policies but to simply put out that with Android "is all about choice" is naive. To use half the apps in the Android marketplace your phone has to be rooted (jailbroken).
Ultimately I'd like for Apple to allow third party apps to be downloaded outside of the App Store and can understand why Jobs doesn't want to offer questionable apps on iTunes.
rans0m00
Jan 4, 10:02 PM
Way to fail garmin if I wanted to download maps the entire time there are plenty of other options that are cheap or free
more...
tktaylor1
Apr 8, 10:53 PM
In Nashville for unleaded it is $3.80 a gallon. I have to use premium so the gas I use is $4 a gallon.
gkarris
Mar 12, 01:12 PM
Neither of those are assembled in the US. They are both the product of The Peoples' Democratic Revolutionary Socialist Province of Ontario.
Ha, ha...
HST got you down? :eek:
;)
Ha, ha...
HST got you down? :eek:
;)
more...
corbijnal
Jan 6, 06:35 PM
Not really sure of the point of push as emails come through about facebook activity anyway.....
Contacts sync is an awesome idea though! Just did it and it downloads the photos and puts a link to the facebook page in each contact....
It doesn't mess up your contacts at all!
Contacts sync is an awesome idea though! Just did it and it downloads the photos and puts a link to the facebook page in each contact....
It doesn't mess up your contacts at all!
gugy
Nov 14, 10:30 AM
I agree that's a great idea. Apple once again on the forefront of thinking great things.
My concern comes when an inividual brings a x-rated(porn) content on their iPods and choose to see on the seat screens. That will cause a furor!:eek:
My concern comes when an inividual brings a x-rated(porn) content on their iPods and choose to see on the seat screens. That will cause a furor!:eek:
more...
capsfan78
Mar 24, 06:08 AM
Are you people seriously applauding this? What a waste of our tax dollars!! I do contracts with the Navy every single day and I know that the technology that they have will not be benefited by the use of iPad/iPod/iPhone. The military does not offer wi-fi to their staff on base. Everything is hard wired and the conduit is sealed with a tamper proof silicon. The Government is very very particular about their SIPRnet (as they call it). Without wi-fi, what use is the iPad for the military other than to give them a little treat and waste our tax dollars? They already have mobile equipment in the vehicles that is far superior to Apple's products.
Every officer I know has a gov't issued blackberry. The iphone and ipad don't necessarily need wifi to be of value.
Every officer I know has a gov't issued blackberry. The iphone and ipad don't necessarily need wifi to be of value.
ppdix
Apr 5, 08:58 AM
The iPhone 4 was and still is the best
more...
Spanky Deluxe
Oct 27, 10:55 PM
Hope some of you guys will make it to the annual Macrumors London Picnic, usually in July or so. :)
I'll be there unless I have some another 'incident' with a certain garden folk. :rolleyes:
I'll be there unless I have some another 'incident' with a certain garden folk. :rolleyes:
Anonymous Freak
Feb 24, 09:57 PM
Pardon my ignorance. I've never used a server before, but now that it is being opened up for free in Lion, is this something that I could benefit from? What can it be used for from average home consumers?
Not much. Most of the 'server' features are really only truly useful in server environments. About the only one I can see as useful for home use is WebDAV sharing for iPad. (i.e. right now the iPad can't see your Mac's network share, so you can't access files that are on your desktop from your iPad - with WebDAV sharing, according to that link, you can, easily.)
Not much. Most of the 'server' features are really only truly useful in server environments. About the only one I can see as useful for home use is WebDAV sharing for iPad. (i.e. right now the iPad can't see your Mac's network share, so you can't access files that are on your desktop from your iPad - with WebDAV sharing, according to that link, you can, easily.)
more...
josun
Mar 31, 01:14 AM
1. Connect your iPad
2. Open Xcode
3. Click "Use for development" on the Xcode
4. Ignore the credential request
5. Look for the option under the iPad's menu
2. Open Xcode
3. Click "Use for development" on the Xcode
4. Ignore the credential request
5. Look for the option under the iPad's menu
abby0880
Sep 1, 04:02 AM
This is nice if it will only be made visible to your friends or if the application will allow you to choose who will know where your exact location is. However, if this is something dangerous, then maybe it will not be worth it. play australian pokies online (http://www.playonlinepokies.com.au/)
carlgo
Mar 27, 10:35 AM
"If I moved just this far over I bet I could get reception...."
AdamBOh3
Mar 24, 01:04 PM
Are you people seriously applauding this? What a waste of our tax dollars!! I do contracts with the Navy every single day and I know that the technology that they have will not be benefited by the use of iPad/iPod/iPhone. The military does not offer wi-fi to their staff on base. Everything is hard wired and the conduit is sealed with a tamper proof silicon. The Government is very very particular about their SIPRnet (as they call it). Without wi-fi, what use is the iPad for the military other than to give them a little treat and waste our tax dollars? They already have mobile equipment in the vehicles that is far superior to Apple's products.
NONSENSE! As a recent active duty infantry Marine and now employed by the USMC I completely disagree! Do you work for SPAWAR or NMCI? You do contracts with the Navy everyday, eh? My father-in-law is a retired Naval Flight Officer, an electrical engineer, and works for SPAWAR in San Diego. He does not like Apple, he likes to do things the hardway and is stuck with windows, even though he concedes things like the iPhone have better technology than his Blackberry (The Blackberry's touch screen pushes down and triggers a touch vs. on an iPhone you just touch it, similar to putting a folder over your keyboard and calling it a touchkeyboard - keys are still being stroked).
And gov't tax dollars!!! Get out of town. My father-in-law has also submitted proposals to deliver millions in savings to the gov't by utilizing off-the-shelf components for USN,USCG, and USMC systems. He has been consistently squashed by higher-ups, some of them who are younger and maybe even Apple users, and they have virtually shut him up in favor of proprietary systems that utilize government contracts to make new systems that are COSTING THE TAXPAYERS MILLIONS. The simplified version is called waste, fraud, and abuse.
The Army is smart for working with Apple and I'm sure that DARPA does already (if not they should be). It sounds like you would rather sit back and see the good 'ol boy government system drown us in stagnation. It seems that BIG ARMY is maybe waking up. Then again, the equipment or chips will most likely be built in China where electronic spyware and backdoors could be put into play. And, do you think the Chinese military and foreign militaries around the world aren't reverse engingeering Apple products and modeling themselves after Apple's management and innovation processes? Welcome to the 21st century of warfare and espionage. You apparently abhor competetion, modernization, and warfighting superiority and would rather return to pre 1984.
Today, I work for the Marine Corps in remote CA. Wi-Fi is coming, as in it's not just a thought but a reality in the works. We have mobile equipment in Iraq/Afghanistan and all over the world and guess what... it's up to military standards but not particularly great and DEFINITELY NOT SUPERIOR TO APPLE PRODUCTS. I can go to amazon or a bix box store and by a better GPS unit than the military will provide and the same thing can be said about off-the-shelf Apple products and HOPEFULLY the Army believes this can be translated into military specific applications. Privates to Generals use Macs during war and they can be used on SIPRnet/NIPRnet. I know, I have done it. Tamper Proof silicon... you must be joking.
Still not sure if you are a Mac fan or a Mac hater. I do know that you don't know it all and I know that I too do not know it all. Yet, I do speak from operational experience.
NONSENSE! As a recent active duty infantry Marine and now employed by the USMC I completely disagree! Do you work for SPAWAR or NMCI? You do contracts with the Navy everyday, eh? My father-in-law is a retired Naval Flight Officer, an electrical engineer, and works for SPAWAR in San Diego. He does not like Apple, he likes to do things the hardway and is stuck with windows, even though he concedes things like the iPhone have better technology than his Blackberry (The Blackberry's touch screen pushes down and triggers a touch vs. on an iPhone you just touch it, similar to putting a folder over your keyboard and calling it a touchkeyboard - keys are still being stroked).
And gov't tax dollars!!! Get out of town. My father-in-law has also submitted proposals to deliver millions in savings to the gov't by utilizing off-the-shelf components for USN,USCG, and USMC systems. He has been consistently squashed by higher-ups, some of them who are younger and maybe even Apple users, and they have virtually shut him up in favor of proprietary systems that utilize government contracts to make new systems that are COSTING THE TAXPAYERS MILLIONS. The simplified version is called waste, fraud, and abuse.
The Army is smart for working with Apple and I'm sure that DARPA does already (if not they should be). It sounds like you would rather sit back and see the good 'ol boy government system drown us in stagnation. It seems that BIG ARMY is maybe waking up. Then again, the equipment or chips will most likely be built in China where electronic spyware and backdoors could be put into play. And, do you think the Chinese military and foreign militaries around the world aren't reverse engingeering Apple products and modeling themselves after Apple's management and innovation processes? Welcome to the 21st century of warfare and espionage. You apparently abhor competetion, modernization, and warfighting superiority and would rather return to pre 1984.
Today, I work for the Marine Corps in remote CA. Wi-Fi is coming, as in it's not just a thought but a reality in the works. We have mobile equipment in Iraq/Afghanistan and all over the world and guess what... it's up to military standards but not particularly great and DEFINITELY NOT SUPERIOR TO APPLE PRODUCTS. I can go to amazon or a bix box store and by a better GPS unit than the military will provide and the same thing can be said about off-the-shelf Apple products and HOPEFULLY the Army believes this can be translated into military specific applications. Privates to Generals use Macs during war and they can be used on SIPRnet/NIPRnet. I know, I have done it. Tamper Proof silicon... you must be joking.
Still not sure if you are a Mac fan or a Mac hater. I do know that you don't know it all and I know that I too do not know it all. Yet, I do speak from operational experience.
Silverfist
Mar 24, 04:09 PM
Holding out until inevitable $0.99 sale...
;)
.
;)
.
Brometheus
Apr 19, 03:09 PM
What does ANY of this have to do to Apple rejecting a Pulitzer Prize-winning cartoonist from the App Store?
Nothing, directly. I was responding to a previous comment as you can see. There is an indirect connection to the cartoonist issue. My feeling is that there's a general failure to understand why Apple has a restrictive policy regarding what types of apps can appear in the app store. My post addressed the issue regarding the prohibition of pornography, instead of the issue of what defines an app with defamatory content as was the case with the cartoonist. There's also, in my opinion, a failure to appreciate that the lack of consistency in the app approval process is a result of Apple being unable to anticipate every scenario and nuance that is presented by certain apps, and the fact that Apple hires people to review apps. You can't realistically expect different people to always agree on situations that are slightly different. In order to respond to the explosion of submitted apps, Apple must have had to hire a lot of new reviewers. That means that you may have less control over the quality and experience level of the people that you have working as reviewers.
Nothing, directly. I was responding to a previous comment as you can see. There is an indirect connection to the cartoonist issue. My feeling is that there's a general failure to understand why Apple has a restrictive policy regarding what types of apps can appear in the app store. My post addressed the issue regarding the prohibition of pornography, instead of the issue of what defines an app with defamatory content as was the case with the cartoonist. There's also, in my opinion, a failure to appreciate that the lack of consistency in the app approval process is a result of Apple being unable to anticipate every scenario and nuance that is presented by certain apps, and the fact that Apple hires people to review apps. You can't realistically expect different people to always agree on situations that are slightly different. In order to respond to the explosion of submitted apps, Apple must have had to hire a lot of new reviewers. That means that you may have less control over the quality and experience level of the people that you have working as reviewers.
kingdonk
Feb 28, 08:26 PM
server app screen shots
Juventuz
Apr 1, 12:13 PM
Until not that long ago Fox controlled DirecTV, so that is likely why.
News Corps, which owns FOX, Sky and many other studios/stations/newspapers, had a 38% stake in DirecTV. They sold it over 3 years ago.
As a long time DirecTV subscriber, who has scaled back some of their services and gone with TWC as well, ever since Liberty Media took over they've done very little. They're falling behind in the HD count and have instead decided to focus on PPV and 3D.
News Corps, which owns FOX, Sky and many other studios/stations/newspapers, had a 38% stake in DirecTV. They sold it over 3 years ago.
As a long time DirecTV subscriber, who has scaled back some of their services and gone with TWC as well, ever since Liberty Media took over they've done very little. They're falling behind in the HD count and have instead decided to focus on PPV and 3D.
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar