bjdku
Sep 13, 09:18 PM
I said I'd bet, not give. As in you pay equal money if this turns out to be right. And it's a figure of speech. :rolleyes:
Well, I for one wish apple would come out with this thing already. I would pay my savings just to end the anguish (figure of speech, hat tip QCassidy352)! Bury the Chocolate! I hate seeing that iPod wanna-be!
Well, I for one wish apple would come out with this thing already. I would pay my savings just to end the anguish (figure of speech, hat tip QCassidy352)! Bury the Chocolate! I hate seeing that iPod wanna-be!
Sydde
Apr 11, 08:09 PM
Is it emissions regulation or just plain laziness by the automakers?
The more paranoid might suggest that oil companies are collaborating with auto makers and the government to keep efficiency as low as they can get away with. Remember, the record for fuel economy was set in the mid 70s in a slightly modified Opel: something like 237 miles on a gallon (US) of gasoline. Highly idealized conditions no doubt, but my goodness, the average automobile today should be at least a third of the way there.
The more paranoid might suggest that oil companies are collaborating with auto makers and the government to keep efficiency as low as they can get away with. Remember, the record for fuel economy was set in the mid 70s in a slightly modified Opel: something like 237 miles on a gallon (US) of gasoline. Highly idealized conditions no doubt, but my goodness, the average automobile today should be at least a third of the way there.
berkleeboy210
Sep 1, 06:32 PM
Toshiba just announced a newer Gigabeat, based on the success of the Gigabeat S. the Gigabeat V is more designed for video, and is now available for pre-order on Amazon for $399. Release date Oct. 14
Hopefully the new iPod will be out by this time frame as well.
Hopefully the new iPod will be out by this time frame as well.
maclaptop
Apr 19, 07:44 AM
Apple is pathetic.
I'm with you.
Poor little Stevie, he's old and bored.
The greedy little man.
I'm with you.
Poor little Stevie, he's old and bored.
The greedy little man.
Sabenth
Aug 23, 05:31 PM
So dose this mean ms can sue apple if they decided to use wifi in ipods ????
ten-oak-druid
Apr 4, 12:42 PM
What a bunch of winey gun-control people in here, the only down side was that the other two involved weren't shot and killed now they get to cost the tax payers more money in court. :rolleyes:
you're quite the hero. :rolleyes:
you're quite the hero. :rolleyes:
guywithabike
Aug 31, 12:33 PM
I'll add fuel to the fire and mention that I just ordered a MacBook yesterday but it's not scheduled to ship out until the 11th. This is usually a good sign of updated machines. However, I'm not expecting Core 2 Duos or anything. A small speed bump would be nice, though.
Vegasman
Mar 30, 01:46 PM
So, here is an interesting argument, as app is short for Applications, and Applications are a strict subset of programs, doesn't the App Store technically sell Programs, not Apps? Thus, the term is no generic at all. "Program Store" would the generic term. It's the same as a club called "Liqueur Store" (which is TMed.)
Interesting indeed. But i would argue that app, application and program are all equally interchangeable.
A club can call itself "Liqueur Store" all it wants. It is not a store that sells liqueur. It's a club that sells liqueur.
Interesting indeed. But i would argue that app, application and program are all equally interchangeable.
A club can call itself "Liqueur Store" all it wants. It is not a store that sells liqueur. It's a club that sells liqueur.
MacNewsFix
Apr 19, 09:39 AM
http://www.palminfocenter.com/images/Treo-680-review-1a.jpg
Looks like Apple copied palm just changed the background to white and the icons to a square!
:rolleyes:
As someone that owned a new Palm or Handspring device since 1997 until I can assure you the similarities are far and few between.
You know, the Palm does remind me of something I remember from the 80's. Hmmmmm.
Looks like Apple copied palm just changed the background to white and the icons to a square!
:rolleyes:
As someone that owned a new Palm or Handspring device since 1997 until I can assure you the similarities are far and few between.
You know, the Palm does remind me of something I remember from the 80's. Hmmmmm.
DrDomVonDoom
Apr 20, 11:08 AM
In my experience, I immediately assume that using any electronic device with some kind of attachment to the internet, that what I am doing is splayed across the airways and collected by various agencies, be them Ad agencies, government agencies etc. I already know that I can be tracked, and called listened to, with no warrent. After those two privacies are gone, this doesn't seem like a real big deal to me.
Its gonna sound douchey, but the odds are, astronomical vegas odds, that no one gives a **** who you are and where your at currently. Unless your a criminal, then who gives a ****? People love to heap worth upon themselves that doesn't exist. Your not a political figure, your a ******* with a iPhone working at McDonalds, calm the **** down and stop worrying about the government tracking you down and concentrate on my Hash Browns.
As far as I can see I don't have a problem with law enforcement agencies being able to see into it, I have nothing to hide.
Maybe if we were on a Android open system this might be a problem. :P
Its gonna sound douchey, but the odds are, astronomical vegas odds, that no one gives a **** who you are and where your at currently. Unless your a criminal, then who gives a ****? People love to heap worth upon themselves that doesn't exist. Your not a political figure, your a ******* with a iPhone working at McDonalds, calm the **** down and stop worrying about the government tracking you down and concentrate on my Hash Browns.
As far as I can see I don't have a problem with law enforcement agencies being able to see into it, I have nothing to hide.
Maybe if we were on a Android open system this might be a problem. :P
foo10
Sep 9, 05:13 AM
I was thinkin of buying a C2D MBP 17" + 23" ACD, but no i've been thinking of going for a 24" iMac and later for the cheapest Macbook. It will be still some time thought, this G5 iMac is still running good for me. Maybe when Leopard is released.
psionic001
Sep 14, 09:30 AM
Why wait for the iPhone when you can have this iPodesque phone!
http://www.globalsourcesdirect.com/servlet/the-1060/USB-Phone/Detail
Matt
http://www.globalsourcesdirect.com/servlet/the-1060/USB-Phone/Detail
Matt
EricNau
Apr 25, 01:16 AM
It amazes me how such little things tick people off.
Indeed. ...Like someone driving the speed limit in the fast lane?
Indeed. ...Like someone driving the speed limit in the fast lane?
Sodner
Apr 19, 12:54 PM
So what? They're already getting sued by Apple, so what's another lawsuit? Point is, contract breach or not, Samsung could cripple Apple's whole ecosystem within days by halting all processor shipments. Apple makes the vast majority on iDevices and this would kill Apple's whole economic model. And this doesn't even account for Samsungs components that go into their Macs. As a result, Apple would have no hardware to sell. They would dip into their treasure chest. It could be devastating to Apple.
You should be on Apples Board of Directors because none of them must have thought about this.
You should be on Apples Board of Directors because none of them must have thought about this.
Doctor Q
Aug 23, 06:10 PM
You seem to be unfamiliar with our court system. This case could have dragged on for YEARS, and cost Apple a TON of money--possibly far more than 100 Million.I know the bills add up quickly, but just how much does an active case cost? That's a lot of zeroes!
dwman
Apr 28, 03:36 PM
This pretty much sums it up.
Michaelgtrusa
Apr 4, 12:53 PM
Well done.
ZipZap
Apr 19, 10:16 AM
Will be settled out of court with no disclosure of terms. Fees/royaltys will be paid....life goes on.
These are business actions and have little to do with what's right and wrong.
These are business actions and have little to do with what's right and wrong.
TheKrillr
Aug 28, 04:22 PM
Only if you buy the machine but don't open the box (unless you're willing to pay a 10% restocking fee). And that's only if you get the standard config, no custom BTO. Plus if you order it, you'll pay shipping back to them.
Hmmm.... looks like if I want to, I'll have to ebay it. :-p Thanks for the info though.
Hmmm.... looks like if I want to, I'll have to ebay it. :-p Thanks for the info though.
rstansby
Apr 22, 02:20 AM
So Apple's method could be more efficient their side, offering a spotify type model where everyone accesses the same iTunes purchased track (except this time they own it) instead of Amazon's where each indivdual track is stored in their "digital locker"?
A nice bt of foresight by Apple if so.
It's not really an original idea. Lala was doing this last year, until Apple bought them and shut them down.
A nice bt of foresight by Apple if so.
It's not really an original idea. Lala was doing this last year, until Apple bought them and shut them down.
peharri
Sep 21, 08:10 AM
Finally, someone gets it right.
CDMA is technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure it. GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company. CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM. It was nothing more than a case of Not Invented Here writ large and turf protection. This early rapid push to standardize on GSM in as many places as possible as a strategic hedge gave them a strong market position in most of the rest of the world. In the US, the various protocols had to fight it out on the open market which took time to sort itself out.
There's a lot of nonsense about IS-95 ("CDMA" as implemented by Qualcomm) that's promoted by Qualcomm shills (some openly, like Steve De Beste) that I'd be very careful about taking claims of "superiority" at face value. The above is so full of the kind mis-representations I've seen posted everywhere I have to respond.
1. CDMA is not "technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure". CDMA (by which I assume you mean IS95, because comparing GSM to CDMA air interface technology is like comparing a minivan to a car tire - the conflation of TDMA and GSM has, and the deliberate underplaying of the 95% of IS-95 that has nothing to do with the air-interface, has been a standard tool in the shills toolbox) has an air-interface technology which has better capacity than GSM's TDMA, but the rest of IS-95 really isn't as mature or consumer friendly as GSM. In particular, IS-95 leaves decisions as to support for SIM cards, and network codes, to operators, which means in practice that there's no standardization and few benefits to an end user who chooses it. Most US operators seem to have, surprise surprise, avoided SIM cards and network standardization seems to be based upon US analog dialing star codes (eg *72, etc)
2. "GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company." is objectively untrue. GSM was developed in the mid-eighties as a method to move towards a standardized mobile phone system for Europe, which at the time had different systems running on different frequencies in pretty much every country (unlike the US where AMPS was available in every state.)
By the time IS-95 was developed, GSM was already an established standard in practically all of Europe. While 900MHz services were mandated as GSM and legacy analogy only by the EC, countries were free to allow other standards on other frequencies until one became dominant on a particular frequency. With 1800MHz, the first operators given the band choose GSM, as it was clearly more advanced than what Qualcomm was offering, and handset makers would have little or no difficulty making multifrequency handsets. (Today GSM is also mandated on 1800MHz, but that wasn't true at the time one2one and Orange, and many that followed, choose GSM.)
The only aspect of IS95 that could be described as "superior" that would require licensing is the CDMA air interface technology. European operators and phone makers have, indeed, licensed that technology (albeit not to Qualcomm's specifications) and it's present in pretty much all implementations of UMTS. So much for that.
3. "CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM." Funny, I could have sworn I saw the exact opposite.
I came to the US in 1998, GSM wasn't available in my market area at the time, and I picked up an IS-95 phone believing it to be superior based upon what was said on newsgroups, US media, and other sources. I was shocked. IS-95 was better than IS-136 ("D-AMPS"), but not by much, and it was considerably less reliable. At that time, IS-95, as providing by most US operators, didn't support two way text messaging or data. It didn't support - much to my astonishment - SIM cards. ISDN integration was nil. Network services were a jumbled mess. Call drops were common, even when signal strengths were high.
Much of this has been fixed since. But what amazed me looking back on it was the sheer nonsense being directed at GSM by IS-95 advocates. GSM was, according to them, identical to IS-136, which they called TDMA. It had identical problems. Apparently on GSM, calls would drop every time you changed tower. GSM only had a 7km range! It only worked in Europe because everyone lives in cities! And GSM was a government owned standard, imposed by the EU on unwilling mobile phone operators.
Every single one of these facts was completely untrue. IS-136 was closer in form to IS-95 than GSM. IS-136, unlike GSM and like IS-95, was essentially built around the same mobile phone model as AMPS, with little or no network services standardization and an inherent assumption that the all calls would be to POTS or other similarly limited cellphones as itself. Like IS-95 and unlike GSM, in IS-136 your phone was your identifier, you couldn't change phones without your operator's permission. Like IS-95 at the time, messaging and data was barely implemented in IS-136 - when I left the UK I'd been browsing the web and using IRC (via Demon's telnetable IRC client) on my Nokia 9000 on a regular basis.
No TDMA system I'm aware of routinely drops calls when you change towers. In practice, I had far more call drops under Sprint PCS then I had under any other operator, namely because IS-95's capacity improvement was over-exaggerated and operators at the time routinely overloaded their networks.
GSM's range, which is around 20km, while technically a limitation of the air interface technology, isn't much different to what a .25W cellphone's range is in practice. You're not going to find many cellphones capable of getting a signal from a tower that far, regardless of what technology you use. The whole "Everyone lives in cities" thing is a myth, as certain countries, notably Finland, have far more US-like demographics in that respect (but what do they know about cellphones in Finland (http://www.nokia.com)?)
GSM was a standard built by the operators after the EU told them to create at least one standard that would be supported across the continent. Only the concept of "standardization" was forced upon operators, the standard - a development of work being done by France Telecom at the time - was made and agreed to by the operators. Those same operators would have looked at IS-95, or even at CDMA incorporated into GSM at the air interface level - had it been a mature, viable, technology at the time. It wasn't.
The only practical advantage IS-95 had over GSM was better capacity. This in theory meant cheaper minutes. For a time, that was true. Today, most US operators offer close to identical tariffs and close to identical reliability. But I can choose which GSM phone I leave the house with, and I know it'll work consistantly regardless of where I am.
Ultimately, the GSM consortium lost and Qualcomm got the last laugh because the technology does not scale as well as CDMA. Every last telecom equipment provider in Europe has since licensed the CDMA technology, and some version of the technology is part of the next generation cellular infrastructure under a few different names.
This paragraph is bizarrely misleading and I'm wondering if you just worded it poorly. GSM is still the worldwide standard. The newest version, UMTS, uses a CDMA air interface but is otherwise a clear development of GSM. It has virtually nothing in common with IS-95. "The GSM consortium" consists of GSM operators and handset makers. They're doing pretty well. What have they lost? Are you saying that because GSM's latest version includes one aspect of the IS-95 standard that GSM is worse? Or that IS-95 is suddenly better?
While GSM has better interoperability globally, I would make the observation that CDMA works just fine in the US, which is no small region of the planet and the third most populous country. For many people, the better quality is worth it.
Given the choice between 2G IS-95 or GSM, I'd pick GSM every time. Given the choice between 3G IS-95 (CDMA2000) and UMTS, I'd pick UMTS every time. The quality is generally better with the GSM equivalent - you're getting a well designed, digitial, integrated, network with GSM with all the features you'd expect. The advantages of the IS-95 equivalent are harder to come by. Slightly better data rates with 3G seems to be the only major one. Well, maybe the only one. Capacity? That's an operator issue. Indeed, with the move to UMA (presumably there'll be an IS-95 equivalent), it wouldn't surprise me if operators need less towers in the future regardless of which network technology they picked. The only other "advantages" IS-95 brings to the table seem to be imaginary.
CDMA is technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure it. GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company. CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM. It was nothing more than a case of Not Invented Here writ large and turf protection. This early rapid push to standardize on GSM in as many places as possible as a strategic hedge gave them a strong market position in most of the rest of the world. In the US, the various protocols had to fight it out on the open market which took time to sort itself out.
There's a lot of nonsense about IS-95 ("CDMA" as implemented by Qualcomm) that's promoted by Qualcomm shills (some openly, like Steve De Beste) that I'd be very careful about taking claims of "superiority" at face value. The above is so full of the kind mis-representations I've seen posted everywhere I have to respond.
1. CDMA is not "technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure". CDMA (by which I assume you mean IS95, because comparing GSM to CDMA air interface technology is like comparing a minivan to a car tire - the conflation of TDMA and GSM has, and the deliberate underplaying of the 95% of IS-95 that has nothing to do with the air-interface, has been a standard tool in the shills toolbox) has an air-interface technology which has better capacity than GSM's TDMA, but the rest of IS-95 really isn't as mature or consumer friendly as GSM. In particular, IS-95 leaves decisions as to support for SIM cards, and network codes, to operators, which means in practice that there's no standardization and few benefits to an end user who chooses it. Most US operators seem to have, surprise surprise, avoided SIM cards and network standardization seems to be based upon US analog dialing star codes (eg *72, etc)
2. "GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company." is objectively untrue. GSM was developed in the mid-eighties as a method to move towards a standardized mobile phone system for Europe, which at the time had different systems running on different frequencies in pretty much every country (unlike the US where AMPS was available in every state.)
By the time IS-95 was developed, GSM was already an established standard in practically all of Europe. While 900MHz services were mandated as GSM and legacy analogy only by the EC, countries were free to allow other standards on other frequencies until one became dominant on a particular frequency. With 1800MHz, the first operators given the band choose GSM, as it was clearly more advanced than what Qualcomm was offering, and handset makers would have little or no difficulty making multifrequency handsets. (Today GSM is also mandated on 1800MHz, but that wasn't true at the time one2one and Orange, and many that followed, choose GSM.)
The only aspect of IS95 that could be described as "superior" that would require licensing is the CDMA air interface technology. European operators and phone makers have, indeed, licensed that technology (albeit not to Qualcomm's specifications) and it's present in pretty much all implementations of UMTS. So much for that.
3. "CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM." Funny, I could have sworn I saw the exact opposite.
I came to the US in 1998, GSM wasn't available in my market area at the time, and I picked up an IS-95 phone believing it to be superior based upon what was said on newsgroups, US media, and other sources. I was shocked. IS-95 was better than IS-136 ("D-AMPS"), but not by much, and it was considerably less reliable. At that time, IS-95, as providing by most US operators, didn't support two way text messaging or data. It didn't support - much to my astonishment - SIM cards. ISDN integration was nil. Network services were a jumbled mess. Call drops were common, even when signal strengths were high.
Much of this has been fixed since. But what amazed me looking back on it was the sheer nonsense being directed at GSM by IS-95 advocates. GSM was, according to them, identical to IS-136, which they called TDMA. It had identical problems. Apparently on GSM, calls would drop every time you changed tower. GSM only had a 7km range! It only worked in Europe because everyone lives in cities! And GSM was a government owned standard, imposed by the EU on unwilling mobile phone operators.
Every single one of these facts was completely untrue. IS-136 was closer in form to IS-95 than GSM. IS-136, unlike GSM and like IS-95, was essentially built around the same mobile phone model as AMPS, with little or no network services standardization and an inherent assumption that the all calls would be to POTS or other similarly limited cellphones as itself. Like IS-95 and unlike GSM, in IS-136 your phone was your identifier, you couldn't change phones without your operator's permission. Like IS-95 at the time, messaging and data was barely implemented in IS-136 - when I left the UK I'd been browsing the web and using IRC (via Demon's telnetable IRC client) on my Nokia 9000 on a regular basis.
No TDMA system I'm aware of routinely drops calls when you change towers. In practice, I had far more call drops under Sprint PCS then I had under any other operator, namely because IS-95's capacity improvement was over-exaggerated and operators at the time routinely overloaded their networks.
GSM's range, which is around 20km, while technically a limitation of the air interface technology, isn't much different to what a .25W cellphone's range is in practice. You're not going to find many cellphones capable of getting a signal from a tower that far, regardless of what technology you use. The whole "Everyone lives in cities" thing is a myth, as certain countries, notably Finland, have far more US-like demographics in that respect (but what do they know about cellphones in Finland (http://www.nokia.com)?)
GSM was a standard built by the operators after the EU told them to create at least one standard that would be supported across the continent. Only the concept of "standardization" was forced upon operators, the standard - a development of work being done by France Telecom at the time - was made and agreed to by the operators. Those same operators would have looked at IS-95, or even at CDMA incorporated into GSM at the air interface level - had it been a mature, viable, technology at the time. It wasn't.
The only practical advantage IS-95 had over GSM was better capacity. This in theory meant cheaper minutes. For a time, that was true. Today, most US operators offer close to identical tariffs and close to identical reliability. But I can choose which GSM phone I leave the house with, and I know it'll work consistantly regardless of where I am.
Ultimately, the GSM consortium lost and Qualcomm got the last laugh because the technology does not scale as well as CDMA. Every last telecom equipment provider in Europe has since licensed the CDMA technology, and some version of the technology is part of the next generation cellular infrastructure under a few different names.
This paragraph is bizarrely misleading and I'm wondering if you just worded it poorly. GSM is still the worldwide standard. The newest version, UMTS, uses a CDMA air interface but is otherwise a clear development of GSM. It has virtually nothing in common with IS-95. "The GSM consortium" consists of GSM operators and handset makers. They're doing pretty well. What have they lost? Are you saying that because GSM's latest version includes one aspect of the IS-95 standard that GSM is worse? Or that IS-95 is suddenly better?
While GSM has better interoperability globally, I would make the observation that CDMA works just fine in the US, which is no small region of the planet and the third most populous country. For many people, the better quality is worth it.
Given the choice between 2G IS-95 or GSM, I'd pick GSM every time. Given the choice between 3G IS-95 (CDMA2000) and UMTS, I'd pick UMTS every time. The quality is generally better with the GSM equivalent - you're getting a well designed, digitial, integrated, network with GSM with all the features you'd expect. The advantages of the IS-95 equivalent are harder to come by. Slightly better data rates with 3G seems to be the only major one. Well, maybe the only one. Capacity? That's an operator issue. Indeed, with the move to UMA (presumably there'll be an IS-95 equivalent), it wouldn't surprise me if operators need less towers in the future regardless of which network technology they picked. The only other "advantages" IS-95 brings to the table seem to be imaginary.
iMacZealot
Sep 14, 12:21 AM
I actually like the idea. There could be a virtual dial on the screen like an old school phone.
Silly me, though! :)
The hell with that. Just put in a rotary dial. :)
http://www.engadget.com/media/2006/05/sillyiphone.jpg
Silly me, though! :)
The hell with that. Just put in a rotary dial. :)
http://www.engadget.com/media/2006/05/sillyiphone.jpg
ctachme
Jul 14, 09:20 AM
The Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Extreme are widely expected to make their Mac debut in Apple's PowerMac computers which are rumored to be released on August 7th 2006 at the World Wide Developers Conference.
I want my MacBook Pro Core 2!!!.
I want my MacBook Pro Core 2!!!.
DaveK
Sep 13, 10:37 PM
Does anyone know if the new HSDPA networks have the bandwidth to allow video iChat?
0 comments:
Post a Comment