Megakazbek
Apr 13, 09:59 AM
Wouldn't it be helpful to see a Gmail-style snippet of your new emails visible when you unlock your phone? Or possibly a small calendar display so you can see at a glance that there's a meeting you're booked into later? I guess it might be difficult to integrate these things without dramatically reducing the space visible for apps but I can imagine a lot of people having a use for this kind of functionality and Apple is denying people the choice at the moment.
I think it may be useful for the lock screen. For home screen I don't think it's much more effective than just launching separate apps to look at mail or calendar.
Anyway, I don't think that it's bad to have widgets or customization, I just think that it's not that important. It will make iOS better, but only a tiny bit better, it won't be any huge step forward.
I still don't quite understand why people are so averse to the idea of a visible file system
It gives too much irrelevant information and it's too easy to make it messy.
For example, if I run Word on PC and click open file, then it will show me the whole filesystem with thousands of browseable folders, but only few of them actually contain any Word documents. Ideally, what I should be able to see instead is list of all Word documents on my computer and all connected devices in a very organized way that makes it easy to find any document in less than a second. I shouldn't care that one part of a report is in my local folder, another part is on flash drive and some other part is written by another dude and is on a network server, but file system wants me to care of these irrelevant things. I can think of hundreds other examples where file system gets in the way of organization and productivity. Basically, it's not the best way to manage documents and media and it should be superseded by something entirely different. And IMHO for Apple moving forward is so principal that they are willing to reject archaic ways of doing some things even if it's currently the ONLY way of doing them. Apple is like - do it the best way or don't do it at all.
I think it may be useful for the lock screen. For home screen I don't think it's much more effective than just launching separate apps to look at mail or calendar.
Anyway, I don't think that it's bad to have widgets or customization, I just think that it's not that important. It will make iOS better, but only a tiny bit better, it won't be any huge step forward.
I still don't quite understand why people are so averse to the idea of a visible file system
It gives too much irrelevant information and it's too easy to make it messy.
For example, if I run Word on PC and click open file, then it will show me the whole filesystem with thousands of browseable folders, but only few of them actually contain any Word documents. Ideally, what I should be able to see instead is list of all Word documents on my computer and all connected devices in a very organized way that makes it easy to find any document in less than a second. I shouldn't care that one part of a report is in my local folder, another part is on flash drive and some other part is written by another dude and is on a network server, but file system wants me to care of these irrelevant things. I can think of hundreds other examples where file system gets in the way of organization and productivity. Basically, it's not the best way to manage documents and media and it should be superseded by something entirely different. And IMHO for Apple moving forward is so principal that they are willing to reject archaic ways of doing some things even if it's currently the ONLY way of doing them. Apple is like - do it the best way or don't do it at all.
ciTiger
Apr 25, 01:17 PM
Finally! Some interesting Mac news! Get that refresh done so we can start talking about the MBP refresh!
sinser
Apr 1, 10:23 AM
Lol, it's really, really ugly. Looks horrible to me and has nothing to do with the minimal Apple look I love. Reminds me of those GTK apps running on old Linux distros.
neonzebra
Apr 13, 02:51 PM
Makes more sense to me that Apple would work to standardize AirPlay as a built-in feature of all new HDTV's, blu-ray players, and other set top boxes like Apple TV. In addition to AirPlay input to the HDTV, the HDTV would do AirPlay output from a TV connected webcam/microphone (if any). I don't see Apple trying to sell actual HDTVs, but the iPad would make a great SmartTV content controller that would replace the need for an Apple TV module.
The existing Apple TV could just evolve into an iOS app.
Nobody is going to replace their $1000 TV with one that will be obsolete in 2 years. But a $99 box that hooks up to your TV is a no-brainer.
Also, how funny is the article image here? The analysts who are making this prediction should have a big L stamped on their forehead.
The existing Apple TV could just evolve into an iOS app.
Nobody is going to replace their $1000 TV with one that will be obsolete in 2 years. But a $99 box that hooks up to your TV is a no-brainer.
Also, how funny is the article image here? The analysts who are making this prediction should have a big L stamped on their forehead.
more...
KnightWRX
Dec 31, 08:40 AM
In a physical sense, weight loss is simple. Burn more calories than you consume. Keeping it off means burning the same amount of calories you consume. Eating certain foods (ex broccoli, tea, DARK chocolate) have beneficial effects and are proven to increase the metabolism. Yes, the mechanics behind it are easy.
Which was my point. The problem with going beyond the mechanics in broad discussions like this is that every individual is different, but every individual's weight control comes down to the same basic mechanic.
I'd rather leave it to individuals themselves to work out what isn't working in their caloric balance, because in the end, they are the best placed to do that.
Eating food often is an addictive tendency. Yes, to a degree it is individual choice, but it does cause results which hurts all of society as you noted. With that said, you have to see obesity as a problem with multiple causes and that there is almost always an underlying cause (ex: people eat more when they are depressed). The lady in this particular article however defies all logic as larger people do not want to be obese.
And I've said as much with my last posts. For morbid obesity, there's almost always something non-physical behind it which over the years has turned into physical disability. It's a "choice" in a sense, the choice to not fix the underlying issue. The thing with obesity is that it can stem from the same issues that brings alcoholism, gambling or drug abuse.
Most importantly, obesity will grow in both prevalence and level of negative effects until a holistic system of living healthy becomes standardized, which thus far, has not occurred to the level needed to start to lower obesity rates. Obesity is both a physical and psychological condition, and I would argue it is also a disease.
There is one interesting point I haven't brought up. For the US at least, there is one outside factor that is not 100% under the individual's control. The Corn Industry. You guys are being fed HFCS in everything if you aren't careful about the products you buy and high fructose corn syrup has been shown to cause weight gain : http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/
When rats are drinking high-fructose corn syrup at levels well below those in soda pop, they're becoming obese -- every single one, across the board. Even when rats are fed a high-fat diet, you don't see this; they don't all gain extra weight."
HFCS does the exact opposite of what it is supposed to do for you, instead of filling you up, it actually makes you more hungry, which then results in busting your caloric balance (since it is a dense calorie additive to begin with). McDonald's addiction ? Look no further than this. I'm sure everyone here has eaten a bigmac with fries, which in and of itself is a big meal (but not abusive, only sitting at 920 calories (http://nutrition.mcdonalds.com/nutritionexchange/nutritionfacts.pdf) for the sandwich and medium fries with no sugared soft drink), and have felt hungry 20 minutes later. That's just insane. On the other hand, you go to Subway, eat a 6 inch sandwich and a chip, which is about the same quantity of food, you get only 2/3rds the calories and you don't feel hunger until you're ready for a late afternoon snack.
Which was my point. The problem with going beyond the mechanics in broad discussions like this is that every individual is different, but every individual's weight control comes down to the same basic mechanic.
I'd rather leave it to individuals themselves to work out what isn't working in their caloric balance, because in the end, they are the best placed to do that.
Eating food often is an addictive tendency. Yes, to a degree it is individual choice, but it does cause results which hurts all of society as you noted. With that said, you have to see obesity as a problem with multiple causes and that there is almost always an underlying cause (ex: people eat more when they are depressed). The lady in this particular article however defies all logic as larger people do not want to be obese.
And I've said as much with my last posts. For morbid obesity, there's almost always something non-physical behind it which over the years has turned into physical disability. It's a "choice" in a sense, the choice to not fix the underlying issue. The thing with obesity is that it can stem from the same issues that brings alcoholism, gambling or drug abuse.
Most importantly, obesity will grow in both prevalence and level of negative effects until a holistic system of living healthy becomes standardized, which thus far, has not occurred to the level needed to start to lower obesity rates. Obesity is both a physical and psychological condition, and I would argue it is also a disease.
There is one interesting point I haven't brought up. For the US at least, there is one outside factor that is not 100% under the individual's control. The Corn Industry. You guys are being fed HFCS in everything if you aren't careful about the products you buy and high fructose corn syrup has been shown to cause weight gain : http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S26/91/22K07/
When rats are drinking high-fructose corn syrup at levels well below those in soda pop, they're becoming obese -- every single one, across the board. Even when rats are fed a high-fat diet, you don't see this; they don't all gain extra weight."
HFCS does the exact opposite of what it is supposed to do for you, instead of filling you up, it actually makes you more hungry, which then results in busting your caloric balance (since it is a dense calorie additive to begin with). McDonald's addiction ? Look no further than this. I'm sure everyone here has eaten a bigmac with fries, which in and of itself is a big meal (but not abusive, only sitting at 920 calories (http://nutrition.mcdonalds.com/nutritionexchange/nutritionfacts.pdf) for the sandwich and medium fries with no sugared soft drink), and have felt hungry 20 minutes later. That's just insane. On the other hand, you go to Subway, eat a 6 inch sandwich and a chip, which is about the same quantity of food, you get only 2/3rds the calories and you don't feel hunger until you're ready for a late afternoon snack.
flopticalcube
Apr 13, 06:46 PM
I see no benefits here.
more...
atari1356
Oct 24, 07:51 AM
We've alreaddy seen threads entitled "Waiting for Santa Rosa" though, I think this will be a never ending cycle under intel. :(
Yeah, and forget the 8 core Cloverton... now we're waiting on 16 cores with Tigerton: http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=4659
It sure beats Motorola/IBM's PowerPC slow update schedule. ;)
Yeah, and forget the 8 core Cloverton... now we're waiting on 16 cores with Tigerton: http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=4659
It sure beats Motorola/IBM's PowerPC slow update schedule. ;)
fatboyslick
May 4, 03:45 AM
Last quarter... people were buying iPhones at a rate of over 200,000 per day. It doesn't matter what they look like... or what time of year it is... Apple will sell iPhones.
Even if the iPhone 5 looks the same but has upgraded hardware inside when it comes out in September... someone will buy it just like someone bought the iPhone 4 from January to March.
Do you have to upgrade to a new model every year? No.
But somebody is always ready to buy a new phone.
BTW... the 3G and 3GS looked the same... and that did OK.
I personally believe these days that the look of the phone comes secondary to what is "under the hood".
Yes it helps if it's a good shape with a good screen but if Apple continue to release devices that a technically better the the rest then people will lap it up - the death grip didnt stop so many iPhone 4s being sold did it - people accepted it as the device packed a punch
Even if the iPhone 5 looks the same but has upgraded hardware inside when it comes out in September... someone will buy it just like someone bought the iPhone 4 from January to March.
Do you have to upgrade to a new model every year? No.
But somebody is always ready to buy a new phone.
BTW... the 3G and 3GS looked the same... and that did OK.
I personally believe these days that the look of the phone comes secondary to what is "under the hood".
Yes it helps if it's a good shape with a good screen but if Apple continue to release devices that a technically better the the rest then people will lap it up - the death grip didnt stop so many iPhone 4s being sold did it - people accepted it as the device packed a punch
more...
iOS v Android
Apr 28, 02:40 PM
Actually it is because a 2 year old iPhone is better than any Android device out there.
Can provide proof other then sells that this phone is better then any android phone.
Johnny Depp and Vanessa
more...
Johnny Depp.
Vanessa Paradis johnny depp
more...
vanessa-paradis-200 by
JOHNNY DEPP#39;s girlfriend
more...
Vanessa Paradis e Johnny Depp
johnny depp y vanessa paradis
more...
Johnny Depp and Vanessa
Johnny Depp amp; Vanessa Paradis
Vanessa Paradis looks pretty
Can provide proof other then sells that this phone is better then any android phone.
Rooskibar03
Apr 23, 04:04 PM
In general, the staff at most retail and restaurant chains are taught to notify the authorities and not get involved. Violating this policy can and will get you fired at best, or killed at worst.
And at what point in American society did helping a fellow human being in distress become less important that making 5 bucks an hour slinging burgers.
Seriously, if McD's fires you for doing the right thing I'm sure there is a BK nearby you can apply at.
IMHO the bystanders in this situation are just as guilty. Maybe Seinfield was onto something all those years ago.
And at what point in American society did helping a fellow human being in distress become less important that making 5 bucks an hour slinging burgers.
Seriously, if McD's fires you for doing the right thing I'm sure there is a BK nearby you can apply at.
IMHO the bystanders in this situation are just as guilty. Maybe Seinfield was onto something all those years ago.
more...
PghLondon
May 1, 05:53 AM
Where did you pluck your "This whole "smartphone OS" is something dreamed up in the last few weeks by Android apologists" Conspiracy from anyway? You must have had some basis to make that judgememt?
No, you're right -- this is something totally subjective (seriously, not being snarky here [for once ;-)] )
I've just noticed that in every report I've read that has an "android slant", the phrase "smartphone OS" has been used. Whereas before, it seemed to be just "mobile OS".
I'm the first to admit that I may be reading a bit into it here. Does look suspiciously like a conspiracy theory from the outside, I imagine.
However, that doesn't change my opinion that the figure that really DOES matter is mobile platform OS share, not smartphone share. :-)
No, you're right -- this is something totally subjective (seriously, not being snarky here [for once ;-)] )
I've just noticed that in every report I've read that has an "android slant", the phrase "smartphone OS" has been used. Whereas before, it seemed to be just "mobile OS".
I'm the first to admit that I may be reading a bit into it here. Does look suspiciously like a conspiracy theory from the outside, I imagine.
However, that doesn't change my opinion that the figure that really DOES matter is mobile platform OS share, not smartphone share. :-)
bousozoku
Jul 26, 09:20 PM
Well Apple is using Intel parts now that explains the lower quality. They're taking their parts from the same bin now; quality suffers... :mad:
Their quality was suffering before the move to Intel processors. Ever seen an iBook G3 or iBook G4 in a store for over 2 months? The keycaps are lying all over the place.
Apple have not been interactively checking on the quality and demanding changes quickly enough to suit their problems. Also, the other companies have problems but because they don't have such a presence as a market leader, only Apple's problems reliably make front page news.
Their quality was suffering before the move to Intel processors. Ever seen an iBook G3 or iBook G4 in a store for over 2 months? The keycaps are lying all over the place.
Apple have not been interactively checking on the quality and demanding changes quickly enough to suit their problems. Also, the other companies have problems but because they don't have such a presence as a market leader, only Apple's problems reliably make front page news.
more...
kdarling
Apr 28, 11:01 AM
... perhaps most surprisingly, the iPhone 3GS took second place in the rankings. Despite essentially being a nearly two-year-old device . . .
That speaks volumes.
That low price sells?
According to your past posts, selling phones at a low price ($49 in this case) is a sign of desperation, of an attempt to flood the market.
Heck, that's far cheaper than BOGO sales for other handsets where two people have sign long contracts.
Or, could it just possibly be that people aren't always swayed just by price? That the device itself could be a major factor?
That speaks volumes.
That low price sells?
According to your past posts, selling phones at a low price ($49 in this case) is a sign of desperation, of an attempt to flood the market.
Heck, that's far cheaper than BOGO sales for other handsets where two people have sign long contracts.
Or, could it just possibly be that people aren't always swayed just by price? That the device itself could be a major factor?
dashiel
Apr 23, 06:18 PM
Why?
I thought AT&T's buyout means T-Mobile is going bye-bye?
408 area code, that means cali. is that steve jobs' personal number? :P
The T-Mobile deal isn't a for sure thing. Likely, but the FTC could block it. Also, as the article states T-Mobile's towers use a different frequencies.
I thought AT&T's buyout means T-Mobile is going bye-bye?
408 area code, that means cali. is that steve jobs' personal number? :P
The T-Mobile deal isn't a for sure thing. Likely, but the FTC could block it. Also, as the article states T-Mobile's towers use a different frequencies.
more...
zen
Apr 19, 12:39 AM
For those experiencing the "device is not eligible for this build" error, the solution is up at the Apple support discussions. (https://discussions.apple.com/message/13386595?messageID=13386595)
MagnusVonMagnum
Nov 19, 05:05 PM
See above, MagnusVonMagnum. I listed four very good reasons why enabling Flash in iOS Safari would be a terrible choice. If you wish your argument to be convincing, you need to address those four specific reasons.
I don't need to do squat guy. WTF do I care about your reasons for wanting to take away my choice to use Flash? I don't. It's not about "propping up" flash, it's about being able to access TODAY'S Internet, not hoping some day that we won't need Flash. Some of us don't hate Flash like you do. We just want to use the Internet unfettered by Steve Jobs playing the part of a Communist Dictator. The only reasons I see from you are excuses to praise Steve. If we had a choice, you could simply disable Flash and have what you already have yet the rest of us could then access the web without having to pay for 3rd party oddball solutions to watch a simple flash video (which does NOTHING to make other Flash functions work, BTW, leaving many sites useless even so. Whether those sites should depend on Flash is irrelevant to some degree since if you want to view and cannot simply due to Steve being a control freak and stubborn man, tough squat).
There are over 120M iOS devices in the world. Those owners have extremely attractive demographics for websites. If website owners haven't begun converting their content off of a proprietary wrapper, they just don't care.
No, they don't care. It's a drop in the ocean compared to the world at large nor should they have to be held hostage by Steve Jobs whose sole goal in life is to get you to pay him for every little thing you do in this world. Want a new battery? Sorry, but we've removed all our battery compartments, but we'll gladly replace your battery for you if you pay us $100+ and mail it to us and do without your device for several days just so we can get more money out of you rather than let you simply buy a battery and remove a simple cover and change it yourself. And THAT is precisely why I can't stand Steve Jobs' attitude towards Apple's customers. He wants to push his warped agendas and ring every last cent out of you no matter how inconvenient it might be to you. He wants to force the destruction of flash by denying his customers access to a large percentage of the world's web sites all the time while lying about iOS devices being able to access the 'real' or 'full' Internet. Sorry, but if you don't have Flash, you don't have the full Internet. I just want innovative products. That is what Steve is good at. That doesn't mean I want his arrogant ego side pushing those products with restrictions that have nothing to do with the technology and only to do with Steve's need to be a control freak.
I don't need to do squat guy. WTF do I care about your reasons for wanting to take away my choice to use Flash? I don't. It's not about "propping up" flash, it's about being able to access TODAY'S Internet, not hoping some day that we won't need Flash. Some of us don't hate Flash like you do. We just want to use the Internet unfettered by Steve Jobs playing the part of a Communist Dictator. The only reasons I see from you are excuses to praise Steve. If we had a choice, you could simply disable Flash and have what you already have yet the rest of us could then access the web without having to pay for 3rd party oddball solutions to watch a simple flash video (which does NOTHING to make other Flash functions work, BTW, leaving many sites useless even so. Whether those sites should depend on Flash is irrelevant to some degree since if you want to view and cannot simply due to Steve being a control freak and stubborn man, tough squat).
There are over 120M iOS devices in the world. Those owners have extremely attractive demographics for websites. If website owners haven't begun converting their content off of a proprietary wrapper, they just don't care.
No, they don't care. It's a drop in the ocean compared to the world at large nor should they have to be held hostage by Steve Jobs whose sole goal in life is to get you to pay him for every little thing you do in this world. Want a new battery? Sorry, but we've removed all our battery compartments, but we'll gladly replace your battery for you if you pay us $100+ and mail it to us and do without your device for several days just so we can get more money out of you rather than let you simply buy a battery and remove a simple cover and change it yourself. And THAT is precisely why I can't stand Steve Jobs' attitude towards Apple's customers. He wants to push his warped agendas and ring every last cent out of you no matter how inconvenient it might be to you. He wants to force the destruction of flash by denying his customers access to a large percentage of the world's web sites all the time while lying about iOS devices being able to access the 'real' or 'full' Internet. Sorry, but if you don't have Flash, you don't have the full Internet. I just want innovative products. That is what Steve is good at. That doesn't mean I want his arrogant ego side pushing those products with restrictions that have nothing to do with the technology and only to do with Steve's need to be a control freak.
more...
ChrisA
Nov 4, 12:31 PM
Maybe I need more RAM, but I was dissapointed to be reminded of Virtual PC, the way it totally slows the rest of my Mac down...
If you are going to run two operating systems then your computer needs to have the resources for the sum of the two systems. So if Mac OSX needs 1GB to run well and so does Windows XP then you need 2GB of ram. Same for the CPU. If a 2Ghz is needed for Windows and a 2Ghz chip for MacOS then you need either a 4Ghz chip or a two core 2Ghz chip. You don't get anything for free. If you want to run two computers you need twice the hardware.
I'll bet this runs great on a Mac Pro
If you are going to run two operating systems then your computer needs to have the resources for the sum of the two systems. So if Mac OSX needs 1GB to run well and so does Windows XP then you need 2GB of ram. Same for the CPU. If a 2Ghz is needed for Windows and a 2Ghz chip for MacOS then you need either a 4Ghz chip or a two core 2Ghz chip. You don't get anything for free. If you want to run two computers you need twice the hardware.
I'll bet this runs great on a Mac Pro
WalcomTV
Apr 25, 10:26 PM
LOL. love all these posts.
Can I start a post thats about how Im anxiously awaiting the END of all these "when is the new iMac coming out" threads?
please lets move on...
Every single thread. Every single thread. You comment on this.
The amount of times you've said: "Im anxiously awaiting the END of all these "when is the new iMac coming out" threads?" is equal to the threads themselves.
This is a forum. People ask questions, so they come here.
Please stop being so pretentious.
Anyway, 2011 iMac huh?
First day purchase for me.
Can I start a post thats about how Im anxiously awaiting the END of all these "when is the new iMac coming out" threads?
please lets move on...
Every single thread. Every single thread. You comment on this.
The amount of times you've said: "Im anxiously awaiting the END of all these "when is the new iMac coming out" threads?" is equal to the threads themselves.
This is a forum. People ask questions, so they come here.
Please stop being so pretentious.
Anyway, 2011 iMac huh?
First day purchase for me.
cleanup
Sep 12, 09:19 PM
And here my last purchase: Shaken green tea lemonade - I quit buying coffee from starbucks to reduce my sugar intake but I needed something to get from the coffee shop!
I actually get a half-green, half-passion tea lemonade. Try it. It's good. :)
Corey, that dog is adorable. What breed?
I actually get a half-green, half-passion tea lemonade. Try it. It's good. :)
Corey, that dog is adorable. What breed?
Schtumple
Jun 6, 06:16 AM
Exactly!
"Don't worry Mom, it says here we can sue the pants off them!"
If this were a really shamelessly bad daytime sitcom, that would be his catch phrase :p
"Don't worry Mom, it says here we can sue the pants off them!"
If this were a really shamelessly bad daytime sitcom, that would be his catch phrase :p
whooleytoo
Apr 14, 07:53 AM
It is nothing.
I mean that literally.
There is no fourth product line.
This is simply a bug where the store is trying to look up a product name by key and the product doesn't exist.
Someone set the product list size one greater than it should be, causing the list to include an extra item. But since there is no device category, looking up the MarketingName for that device category fails.
But the question remains - why is "Mac" in the variable name? On an App Store that doesn't support any Macs.
It could be nothing, a naming convention carried over, but it is odd.
I mean that literally.
There is no fourth product line.
This is simply a bug where the store is trying to look up a product name by key and the product doesn't exist.
Someone set the product list size one greater than it should be, causing the list to include an extra item. But since there is no device category, looking up the MarketingName for that device category fails.
But the question remains - why is "Mac" in the variable name? On an App Store that doesn't support any Macs.
It could be nothing, a naming convention carried over, but it is odd.
TuffLuffJimmy
Apr 25, 12:11 AM
I have seen some transgenders, and I have nothing to say to them.
That's pretty messed up. Just because you feel uncomfortable with someone who doesn't identify as their birth gender doesn't mean they're somehow not worth your conversation.
Is it because of your religion? Christian perhaps? I wonder if Jesus would have been so dismissive of trans people too.
That's pretty messed up. Just because you feel uncomfortable with someone who doesn't identify as their birth gender doesn't mean they're somehow not worth your conversation.
Is it because of your religion? Christian perhaps? I wonder if Jesus would have been so dismissive of trans people too.
likemyorbs
May 2, 03:13 AM
Soooo basically they dumped him in the ocean. Good enough i suppose.
trunten
Nov 20, 05:14 PM
You both need to calm down. One of you wants flash, the other could do without. We get it.
And by the way Apple is under no obligation to offer you Flash or anything else for that matter, you knew before your purchase that Safari would never support Flash, consider yourself fortunate that Skyfire exists.
On topic, I wonder if the ipad app will be any different? Perhaps they can embed the video in the website so it takes the place of the original flash content?
And by the way Apple is under no obligation to offer you Flash or anything else for that matter, you knew before your purchase that Safari would never support Flash, consider yourself fortunate that Skyfire exists.
On topic, I wonder if the ipad app will be any different? Perhaps they can embed the video in the website so it takes the place of the original flash content?
No comments:
Post a Comment