charliehustle
Oct 7, 12:16 PM
None of these things play any role for the iPhone market share.
Far more relevant are:
- cheaper low-end models, iPhone Nano (not that likely)
- dropping provider exclusiveness (very likely, already happening: UK, Canada, more to come)
Analysts keep forgetting that Apple doesn't care that much about market share of sold handsets, but more about market share of profit. Thus, it could very well be that Android overtakes iPhone in a few years, given that manufacturers offer cheap phones running Android. If these phones are any good or if they generate much profit: I highly doubt it.
generally speaking, a company that only makes software (google) has higher profit margins compared to a company that makes hardware and software..(apple)
and it seems like it's possible for google to take over, as they will sell to any phone manufacturer, but apple is stuck with only one device..
now if it's going to be a better phone, thats a different story, this is just market share, and profits..
Far more relevant are:
- cheaper low-end models, iPhone Nano (not that likely)
- dropping provider exclusiveness (very likely, already happening: UK, Canada, more to come)
Analysts keep forgetting that Apple doesn't care that much about market share of sold handsets, but more about market share of profit. Thus, it could very well be that Android overtakes iPhone in a few years, given that manufacturers offer cheap phones running Android. If these phones are any good or if they generate much profit: I highly doubt it.
generally speaking, a company that only makes software (google) has higher profit margins compared to a company that makes hardware and software..(apple)
and it seems like it's possible for google to take over, as they will sell to any phone manufacturer, but apple is stuck with only one device..
now if it's going to be a better phone, thats a different story, this is just market share, and profits..
Tymmz
Aug 29, 11:06 AM
Why do these "tree-huggers" have to interfere with business?
Apples does what they can to have more "enviornmentally-friendly" ways of processing their products. But 4th worst?
?tree-huggers? ?interfere with business? !we don't want to start that discussion!
Do you have proof for your statement, that Apple is doing their best?
Apples does what they can to have more "enviornmentally-friendly" ways of processing their products. But 4th worst?
?tree-huggers? ?interfere with business? !we don't want to start that discussion!
Do you have proof for your statement, that Apple is doing their best?
torbjoern
Apr 24, 11:12 AM
The deal with religious people is founded in human nature; it's the need to have faith in something bigger than oneself. For some reason, the Church of Scientology comes to my mind when I'm writing this. Oh yes, here is my question: how many religions are founded on somebody's desire to exploit that need?
Lately I read that the iPhone was considered the world's greatest invention. It isn't. God is the greatest invention ever.
Lately I read that the iPhone was considered the world's greatest invention. It isn't. God is the greatest invention ever.
ghostface147
May 2, 09:24 AM
I am not concerned with malware that requires user intervention and a few clicks to install things. I am more concerned with malware that installs silently without you seeing any pop-ups or stuff like that.
Kind of like those pwn2own contests I think are over-rated. "Pwn" my machine without me having to click anything, visit any website or anything. I'll just boot my machine, leave it at the login screen and let you do your thing. You can't touch it physically, just find a way in.
Kind of like those pwn2own contests I think are over-rated. "Pwn" my machine without me having to click anything, visit any website or anything. I'll just boot my machine, leave it at the login screen and let you do your thing. You can't touch it physically, just find a way in.
richard.mac
Mar 11, 01:54 AM
crap! :( thoughts to the Japanese living there. earth is fierce atm! disastrous earthquakes in cities like there and in New Zealand and that flooding in Australia.
Gelfin
Apr 24, 03:03 PM
In answer to the OP's question, I have long harbored the suspicion (without any clear idea how to test it) that human beings have evolved their penchant for accepting nonsense. On the face of it, accepting that which does not correspond with reality is a very costly behavior. Animals that believe they need to sacrifice part of their food supply should be that much less likely to survive than those without that belief.
My hunch, however, is that the willingness to play along with certain kinds of nonsense games, including religion and other ritualized activities, is a social bonding mechanism in humans so deeply ingrained that it is difficult for us to step outside ourselves and recognize it for a game. One's willingness to play along with the rituals of a culture signifies that his need to be a part of the community is stronger than his need for rational justification. Consenting to accept a manufactured truth is an act of submission. It generates social cohesion and establishes shibboleths. In a way it is a constant background radiation of codependence and enablement permeating human existence.
If I go way too far out on this particular limb, I actually suspect that the ability to prioritize rational justification over social submission is a more recent development than we realize, and that this development is still competing with the old instincts for social cohesion. Perhaps this is the reason that atheists and skeptics are typically considered more objectionable than those with differing religious or supernatural beliefs. Playing the game under slightly different rules seems less dangerous than refusing to play at all.
Think of the undertones of the intuitive stereotype many people have of skeptics: many people automatically imagine a sort of bristly, unfriendly loner who isn't really happy and is always trying to make other people unhappy too. There is really no factual basis for this caricature, and yet it is almost universal. On this account, when we become adults we do not stop playing games of make-believe. Instead we just start taking our games of make-believe very seriously, and our intuitive sense is that someone who rejects our games is rejecting us. Such a person feels untrustworthy in a way we would find hard to justify.
Religions are hardly the only source of this sort of game. I suspect they are everywhere, often too subtle to notice, but religions are by far the largest, oldest, most obtrusive example.
My hunch, however, is that the willingness to play along with certain kinds of nonsense games, including religion and other ritualized activities, is a social bonding mechanism in humans so deeply ingrained that it is difficult for us to step outside ourselves and recognize it for a game. One's willingness to play along with the rituals of a culture signifies that his need to be a part of the community is stronger than his need for rational justification. Consenting to accept a manufactured truth is an act of submission. It generates social cohesion and establishes shibboleths. In a way it is a constant background radiation of codependence and enablement permeating human existence.
If I go way too far out on this particular limb, I actually suspect that the ability to prioritize rational justification over social submission is a more recent development than we realize, and that this development is still competing with the old instincts for social cohesion. Perhaps this is the reason that atheists and skeptics are typically considered more objectionable than those with differing religious or supernatural beliefs. Playing the game under slightly different rules seems less dangerous than refusing to play at all.
Think of the undertones of the intuitive stereotype many people have of skeptics: many people automatically imagine a sort of bristly, unfriendly loner who isn't really happy and is always trying to make other people unhappy too. There is really no factual basis for this caricature, and yet it is almost universal. On this account, when we become adults we do not stop playing games of make-believe. Instead we just start taking our games of make-believe very seriously, and our intuitive sense is that someone who rejects our games is rejecting us. Such a person feels untrustworthy in a way we would find hard to justify.
Religions are hardly the only source of this sort of game. I suspect they are everywhere, often too subtle to notice, but religions are by far the largest, oldest, most obtrusive example.
HiRez
Sep 26, 05:34 PM
It's not placebo. I am rendering video most of the time. So I'm not wrong.
What I meant is that you're wrong that I have no experience using a quad-core Mac...not so much on your opinion...
You just have a different frame of reference than I. Not trying to be right and calling you wrong - just sharing my experience as I see it. We're both right from our different points of view. I don't use the Adobe suite much at all - mainly only ImageReady. So we don't share experience with a common set of applications.Sorry if I reacted strongly...yes, it really does depend on each individual situation. All else being equal, sure, more cores are better. I'm just saying a lot of people, probably the majority of people, don't need and will rarely put to use more than two of them.
What I meant is that you're wrong that I have no experience using a quad-core Mac...not so much on your opinion...
You just have a different frame of reference than I. Not trying to be right and calling you wrong - just sharing my experience as I see it. We're both right from our different points of view. I don't use the Adobe suite much at all - mainly only ImageReady. So we don't share experience with a common set of applications.Sorry if I reacted strongly...yes, it really does depend on each individual situation. All else being equal, sure, more cores are better. I'm just saying a lot of people, probably the majority of people, don't need and will rarely put to use more than two of them.
iJohnHenry
Mar 15, 02:47 PM
Are you drunk?
I thought he was suffering from extreme youth.
I thought he was suffering from extreme youth.
wdogmedia
Aug 29, 01:01 PM
Come on, people, let's cut Greenpeace some slack, here. Their fanaticism only goes to certain lengths...the reason they protest Apple and other U.S. businesses is because if they actually protested in places where pollution was a major issue (like China), they'd all get shot. :)
SandynJosh
May 2, 04:06 PM
You're not quite understanding what I'm saying or the situation here. Safari auto-downloads a zip file, runs it through Archive Utility which extracts something and then runs it.
It happens to be an installer this time. What if next time it's a malicious piece of code ? Why did it auto-execute, under what conditions and could these conditions be used to execute something other than an installer ?
Think a bit beyond the current situation. The malware authors do.
I think I understands what you are saying. However, for the sake of clarity, let me answer your question relating to "why it auto-executed." The Safari protection level needs to be set to "Allow 'Safe' files to be opened."
This allows the Archive Utility to open the .zip file which contains the installation file to begin execution. Had the user not allowed this action, the file would never had made it to the user's computer without the user deliberate allowing it to be downloaded.
Once the installer is running, it still needs the user to enter and password and authorize the installer to install the software. If the user doesn't have the computer's administrator password, then once more the malware is blocked.
To address your other question, as to what conditions could malicious code get into OSX:
1. First, the file would need to be considered "safe" to be allowed to auto-download and auto-open, AND the browser would need to be set to allow this.
2. Then, like the case with the installer above, it would need to seek the user's permission to be installed. This again, required the complicity of the user, who would still need the administrator's password.
It happens to be an installer this time. What if next time it's a malicious piece of code ? Why did it auto-execute, under what conditions and could these conditions be used to execute something other than an installer ?
Think a bit beyond the current situation. The malware authors do.
I think I understands what you are saying. However, for the sake of clarity, let me answer your question relating to "why it auto-executed." The Safari protection level needs to be set to "Allow 'Safe' files to be opened."
This allows the Archive Utility to open the .zip file which contains the installation file to begin execution. Had the user not allowed this action, the file would never had made it to the user's computer without the user deliberate allowing it to be downloaded.
Once the installer is running, it still needs the user to enter and password and authorize the installer to install the software. If the user doesn't have the computer's administrator password, then once more the malware is blocked.
To address your other question, as to what conditions could malicious code get into OSX:
1. First, the file would need to be considered "safe" to be allowed to auto-download and auto-open, AND the browser would need to be set to allow this.
2. Then, like the case with the installer above, it would need to seek the user's permission to be installed. This again, required the complicity of the user, who would still need the administrator's password.
SimD
Apr 12, 10:39 PM
I'm a full time professional editor who has edited on Avid since 1997 and FCP since 2005.. Does that not count? Almost every 'pro film' editor I have ever met (and I'm talking people who make hollywood films) barely knows how to turn the machine on.
I feel that Apple is marketing to the newer generation coming into the industry. I can't speak for the States, but here in Canada, schools are slowly transitioning from Avid to FCP for this very reason. At my uni, first year is film. Shoot film, cut film, project film. Year 2, we enter digital. Having this basic understanding, we are aware of what each feature does, and why it exists.
Apple is making it easier for filmmakers to jump right in and edit. Which is why their software is scalable. From the simplest Macbook to the highest end Mac Pro.
But these pros you speak of... it doesn't matter.. Being an editor doesn't mean knowing software. It's all about the aesthetics of montage. So whether they can turn on their computer or not, it doesn't matter. That's why productions hire Assistant Editors...
I feel that Apple is marketing to the newer generation coming into the industry. I can't speak for the States, but here in Canada, schools are slowly transitioning from Avid to FCP for this very reason. At my uni, first year is film. Shoot film, cut film, project film. Year 2, we enter digital. Having this basic understanding, we are aware of what each feature does, and why it exists.
Apple is making it easier for filmmakers to jump right in and edit. Which is why their software is scalable. From the simplest Macbook to the highest end Mac Pro.
But these pros you speak of... it doesn't matter.. Being an editor doesn't mean knowing software. It's all about the aesthetics of montage. So whether they can turn on their computer or not, it doesn't matter. That's why productions hire Assistant Editors...
skunk
Apr 23, 05:29 PM
I've found the response of some of the devout atheist posters in this thread very interesting,What is a "devout atheist"? :confused:
Eraserhead
Mar 27, 11:59 AM
And why do people who believe that stuff spend so much time and effort concerning themselves with homosexuality?
Its probably down to them being in the closet themselves.
Its probably down to them being in the closet themselves.
AceCoolie
Mar 18, 11:09 AM
I want to jail break my iphone 4 and install mifi. The reason is to create a mobile router that my iPad and camera can connect to so that images shot my camera will appear on my iPad. This will not involve any data going to the internet. Is this a violation of my ATT agreement? Will then even be able to tell I'm doing it?
Cromulent
Mar 27, 04:40 PM
And maybe you need to learn that when you reiterate a point that has already been made in the form of a "why not" question, you are viewed to be supporting the point. I have followed the thread, and I saw the point you were quoting.
That the Catholics believe this bit about celibacy has been apparent for a few pages - there was never any need for you to regurgitate the point. But now that you apparently have, and have assigned some sort of logic to it, I'm asking what is that logic. What reasons that apply to a priest being celibate might apply to a gay person?
You seem to be trying to defend everything about your post but the only issue anyone could ever have with it.
You are constantly missing the point. Someone said it was horrible to expect someone to be celibate just because they were gay. I simply stated that if Catholics already expected priests to be celibate then why is it so hard for gay people to remain celibate?
I mean its not like they are saying only homosexuals must be celibate if they also require their own priests to be celibate. That was the only point I was making. It seemed pretty clear given the quoted text in my very first post.
If you are saying that it makes any kind of sense, I'll ask you again, "why?"
I guess you'll have to ask a Catholic why they would require celibacy of a homosexual. I was simply pointing out that celibacy in the Catholic church was an accepted practice and not looked at in quite the same way as non-Catholic people and not as horrible as the person I originally quoted was making out. After all if a priest can cope why can't a homosexual?
Anyway I'm not entirely sure why I let myself get dragged into this after what was obviously a throw away comment simply talking about the logic of a given argument. It has nothing to do with 'why' something should or should not happen simply whether a stance is a logical one or not.
That the Catholics believe this bit about celibacy has been apparent for a few pages - there was never any need for you to regurgitate the point. But now that you apparently have, and have assigned some sort of logic to it, I'm asking what is that logic. What reasons that apply to a priest being celibate might apply to a gay person?
You seem to be trying to defend everything about your post but the only issue anyone could ever have with it.
You are constantly missing the point. Someone said it was horrible to expect someone to be celibate just because they were gay. I simply stated that if Catholics already expected priests to be celibate then why is it so hard for gay people to remain celibate?
I mean its not like they are saying only homosexuals must be celibate if they also require their own priests to be celibate. That was the only point I was making. It seemed pretty clear given the quoted text in my very first post.
If you are saying that it makes any kind of sense, I'll ask you again, "why?"
I guess you'll have to ask a Catholic why they would require celibacy of a homosexual. I was simply pointing out that celibacy in the Catholic church was an accepted practice and not looked at in quite the same way as non-Catholic people and not as horrible as the person I originally quoted was making out. After all if a priest can cope why can't a homosexual?
Anyway I'm not entirely sure why I let myself get dragged into this after what was obviously a throw away comment simply talking about the logic of a given argument. It has nothing to do with 'why' something should or should not happen simply whether a stance is a logical one or not.
.Andy
Apr 24, 10:32 PM
And just to be clear, I DID NOT make a 35 on the ACT my Junior year of high school, and I am not on scholarship to a top 25 university.
happy now? :cool:
An intellectual heavy weight right here in Macrumors! Who would have thought it!
happy now? :cool:
An intellectual heavy weight right here in Macrumors! Who would have thought it!
Evangelion
Jul 12, 06:47 AM
Way, costs about $1 for Apple to fix it. Great!
So what?
You cannot put a price tag for components such as CPU and GPU that get updated with every single hardware revision. Yes, in time they become more capable with every revision, but the relative price of such components does not change that much.
So you are saying that dual-core Core Due CPU costs Apple about as much as the G4 did? back when Mini had G4, the CPU was bottom of the barrel, with prices to match. The Core Duo (or solo for that matter) are actually very good CPU's and they do cost more than the G4 did. SO-DIMM is also more expenside than regural DDR-SDRAM is.
The built-in wireless on the other hand is something of extra value; however, Apple cuts its own costs of eliminating an option, so it should not cost the customer that much extra.
Why not? The customer receives more, why shouldn't he pay more for it? "because it doesn't cost that much more to the company!" Well boo-hoo! I bet that a car with 2-liter engine doesn't REALLY cost that much more to make than similar car with 1.6-liter engine, yet we have to pay more for the bigger engine. By your logic they should cost the same?
And how about the remote?
You should compare dollars to dollars when you say one is cheaper than another. You buy items with dollars and that's it. You look at the numbers and say that smaller value is cheaper. Didn't your mother teach you that?
OK, compare the prices then. You will see that you could buy a Mac Mini for $599 back then. And guess what? You can buy a Mac Mini for $599 even today! True, you can't get one for $499, but at this point I feel compelled to ask: So what? Since when did Macs become the rock-bottom computers with prices to match?
Hell, I have been watching some old Stevenotes recently. And I remember him introducing PowerMacs with prices starting at $1499. Why aren't we whining because PowerMacs are more expensive today?
So what?
You cannot put a price tag for components such as CPU and GPU that get updated with every single hardware revision. Yes, in time they become more capable with every revision, but the relative price of such components does not change that much.
So you are saying that dual-core Core Due CPU costs Apple about as much as the G4 did? back when Mini had G4, the CPU was bottom of the barrel, with prices to match. The Core Duo (or solo for that matter) are actually very good CPU's and they do cost more than the G4 did. SO-DIMM is also more expenside than regural DDR-SDRAM is.
The built-in wireless on the other hand is something of extra value; however, Apple cuts its own costs of eliminating an option, so it should not cost the customer that much extra.
Why not? The customer receives more, why shouldn't he pay more for it? "because it doesn't cost that much more to the company!" Well boo-hoo! I bet that a car with 2-liter engine doesn't REALLY cost that much more to make than similar car with 1.6-liter engine, yet we have to pay more for the bigger engine. By your logic they should cost the same?
And how about the remote?
You should compare dollars to dollars when you say one is cheaper than another. You buy items with dollars and that's it. You look at the numbers and say that smaller value is cheaper. Didn't your mother teach you that?
OK, compare the prices then. You will see that you could buy a Mac Mini for $599 back then. And guess what? You can buy a Mac Mini for $599 even today! True, you can't get one for $499, but at this point I feel compelled to ask: So what? Since when did Macs become the rock-bottom computers with prices to match?
Hell, I have been watching some old Stevenotes recently. And I remember him introducing PowerMacs with prices starting at $1499. Why aren't we whining because PowerMacs are more expensive today?
Mike Teezie
Sep 20, 10:26 AM
I'm buying this thing the day it drops.
Being able to stream iPhoto slideshows wirelessly to a big TV for clients is going to be wonderful.
Being able to stream iPhoto slideshows wirelessly to a big TV for clients is going to be wonderful.
ASP272
Mar 18, 03:29 PM
I haven't used the program, but anything that scares the music industry and bands like Metallic (about increased sharing/piracy) is bad news for itms. Apple will hopefully fix it before I finish typing this response. :eek:
koobcamuk
Apr 9, 01:23 AM
Nope, obviously the biggest screen you have is your ipad. The console gaming experience is nothing like the mind numbing games which make the bulk of the App store. Sure there are maybe 20 games that have anything like the look of a console, but touch is no replacement for tactile feedback. Take a peek: Appshopper (http://appshopper.com/iphone/games/)
Nicely said. Even if you can output the iPod/iPhone/iPad video to a TV, it doesn't matter. The games are 99c for a reason! The app store is FULL of rubbish, as you rightly point out.
Nicely said. Even if you can output the iPod/iPhone/iPad video to a TV, it doesn't matter. The games are 99c for a reason! The app store is FULL of rubbish, as you rightly point out.
Xtremehkr
Mar 18, 09:35 PM
iTMS exists to sell iPods yes. But, if iTMS does not do something to protect the profits of those who allow iTMS to sell their songs then they will stop supplying iTMS with songs to sell.
There was a way to get around this before, but it was only used by a minority of people and considered an acceptable loss I guess.
What you have here is someone who is internationally advertising a way to beat copyright protections through iTMS, which hurts Apple as it may affect suppliers of music to iTMS.
There were ways to beat iTMS before and the best way was to avoid it altogether and use a P2P software.
This to me is different however. It is a direct attack on Apple aimed at disuading music labels from providing iTMS with songs to download.
In this instance I stand with Apple, as the MP3 market heats up, one of the determining factors in who people choose to buy their music from is going to be exclusive content. Labels are not going to release material to distributors who cannot assure that their material won't be easily pirated.
*If they fix this hole and leave everything else in place there really is no problem*
The songs iTMS sells are not their own! iTMS is a middleman that is not guaranteed access to the product that it resells. An essential part of selling iPods is being able to offer current music to play on them. iTMS needs to protect its ability to resell the music needed to use on iPods.
There was a way to get around this before, but it was only used by a minority of people and considered an acceptable loss I guess.
What you have here is someone who is internationally advertising a way to beat copyright protections through iTMS, which hurts Apple as it may affect suppliers of music to iTMS.
There were ways to beat iTMS before and the best way was to avoid it altogether and use a P2P software.
This to me is different however. It is a direct attack on Apple aimed at disuading music labels from providing iTMS with songs to download.
In this instance I stand with Apple, as the MP3 market heats up, one of the determining factors in who people choose to buy their music from is going to be exclusive content. Labels are not going to release material to distributors who cannot assure that their material won't be easily pirated.
*If they fix this hole and leave everything else in place there really is no problem*
The songs iTMS sells are not their own! iTMS is a middleman that is not guaranteed access to the product that it resells. An essential part of selling iPods is being able to offer current music to play on them. iTMS needs to protect its ability to resell the music needed to use on iPods.
Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 29, 02:53 PM
Ditto stem cells. :)
stem cells is not altering the original genetical code. HUGE difference
stem cells is not altering the original genetical code. HUGE difference
gopher
Oct 9, 07:28 AM
If Windows XP didn't have so much spyware attached to it, and required registration, and the insecurity that Microsoft is so famous for on its systems (yes there are still as many bugs and holes in XP for hackers to get through as in Windows 2000 and before), and the fact remains none of the source code is open, where at least some of Mac OS X is open and free for development purposes, I would have gone to Microsoft. Speed doesn't matter a hill of beans if your machine is so insecure you can't trust your bank numbers to it. Macs are faster in some cases than Windows XP, while slower in others and they maintain a level of security that doesn't require a firewall or anti-virus program anywhere near as much as Windows XP does.
I'd rather fly an airplane than a space shuttle with o-rings that leak.
What's more, who really wants to be forced to support Microsoft?
With a Mac you can avoid Microsoft altogether.
I'd rather fly an airplane than a space shuttle with o-rings that leak.
What's more, who really wants to be forced to support Microsoft?
With a Mac you can avoid Microsoft altogether.
Multimedia
Oct 26, 04:13 PM
I would think the dual quad cores are meant for clientèle a little up market from Adobe users.ROTFLMAO :D :p :) You're breaking my balls Ben.
