GulGnu
Mar 30, 06:08 AM
Secondly, the term "3rd world" and "1st world" is offensive.
Why? It�s just a reference to the battleground / spectator status of the decolonized countries during the cold war. (The "second world" being the now-defunct Soviet Bloc.)
From the almighty Wikipedia:
"French demographer, anthropologist and historian Alfred Sauvy, in an article published in the French magazine L'Observateur, August 14, 1952, coined the term Third World, referring to countries that were unaligned with either the Communist Soviet bloc or the Capitalist NATO bloc during the Cold War. His usage was a reference to the Third Estate, the commoners of France who, before and during the French Revolution, opposed priests and nobles, who composed the First Estate and Second Estate, respectively. "
Why? It�s just a reference to the battleground / spectator status of the decolonized countries during the cold war. (The "second world" being the now-defunct Soviet Bloc.)
From the almighty Wikipedia:
"French demographer, anthropologist and historian Alfred Sauvy, in an article published in the French magazine L'Observateur, August 14, 1952, coined the term Third World, referring to countries that were unaligned with either the Communist Soviet bloc or the Capitalist NATO bloc during the Cold War. His usage was a reference to the Third Estate, the commoners of France who, before and during the French Revolution, opposed priests and nobles, who composed the First Estate and Second Estate, respectively. "
geta
May 6, 08:06 AM
Apple only went with intel because IBM was never going to be able to make a G5 laptop chip. Why are people so closed minded when it comes to change?
its not about 'closed minded' , some ppl's working with the mac's for living, and not only playing games, watching movies D\L mp3.... !
im still working with PowerMac G5 - yap you heard right, G5 !
i've got no problem to finish my projects with it, but i do have a problem with all the new programs i need for my work.... they not support the old CPU :mad:
so now i need to upgrade to new MacPro that will cost me �3000 + the extra cards (the one's im using it PCI... so i need to upgrade them to PCI-e) coz of that.
so if they will move to the new CPU's, it will append all over agin..... couple years after the move, all the programs wont support intel based macs....
its not about 'closed minded' , some ppl's working with the mac's for living, and not only playing games, watching movies D\L mp3.... !
im still working with PowerMac G5 - yap you heard right, G5 !
i've got no problem to finish my projects with it, but i do have a problem with all the new programs i need for my work.... they not support the old CPU :mad:
so now i need to upgrade to new MacPro that will cost me �3000 + the extra cards (the one's im using it PCI... so i need to upgrade them to PCI-e) coz of that.
so if they will move to the new CPU's, it will append all over agin..... couple years after the move, all the programs wont support intel based macs....
fuwafuwa
Apr 18, 04:03 PM
Not at all. They can use those components for producing Galaxy devices. And they can use free Foxconn resources (since they would not be assembling iPhones anymore) for assembling. :D
Why not, because last year sales was "quite smooth".
Why not, because last year sales was "quite smooth".
LeighAnna Jones
Mar 29, 04:13 PM
Thousands of people are dying in Japan and all you idiots care about is iPod Touch batteries? That's kind of... selfish.
longday
Aug 2, 12:36 PM
I'm guessing since all the laptops Apple makes now have cameras built-in they're not terribly concerned about sales lost to "sensitive environments" that do not permit cameras. I'm also guessing their mostly government-affiliated and Apple still doesn't really have any considerable portion of the government (excluding education) market.
That said, here's hoping for iPhone. Treo700 is too damn expensive.
That said, here's hoping for iPhone. Treo700 is too damn expensive.
D A
May 6, 01:53 AM
I was a little worried until I saw who wrote the article. It's Charlie Demerjian and I've never seen a tech journalist as full of **** as he is. No need to worry, Apple ain't switching to ARM chips in their Macs.
WildCowboy
Aug 3, 10:30 PM
Not a whole lot of new info, but any indication that the move to Merom will be a rapid one is certainly welcomed...
rbgb
Sep 16, 02:34 AM
What about the inclusion/release of Blu-Ray Drives?
miles01110
Aug 4, 09:33 AM
What are the odds that Apple Stores will offer to upgrade the Yonah processors in the MacBooks, iMacs, and Minis to the Merom chips (for a fee, of course)?
I'm guessing they won't do this, but I thought I'd ask.
Zero to none.
I'm guessing they won't do this, but I thought I'd ask.
Zero to none.
Skika
May 6, 02:23 AM
So many derpy comments that just have "omg my mac is gonna be an iOS device, toys toys everywhere "
I seriously cant believe how some think Apple would just destroy itself by putting crappy chips for no reason. If they are going to put ARM in notebooks they have good reason for doing that, either they will be a better choice for the Air or maybe ARM has some serious power chips planned.
u have no idea so stop hatin
I seriously cant believe how some think Apple would just destroy itself by putting crappy chips for no reason. If they are going to put ARM in notebooks they have good reason for doing that, either they will be a better choice for the Air or maybe ARM has some serious power chips planned.
u have no idea so stop hatin
Glen Quagmire
Aug 7, 02:09 PM
Anyone drop one of these in their cart and press order yet?
Someone on Ars has.
I am thinking about it.
Someone on Ars has.
I am thinking about it.
supmango
Apr 26, 02:12 PM
I really hope that Apple sees trends like this and realizes it's time to change their game plan. No more once a year phones. Time to kick the innovation level up a few notches. Time for over the air OS updates, over the air app installs, wireless syncing and everything else Android has offered for some time now.
iOS does over the air app installs. Other than that, yes I agree that Apple needs to do those things.
Oh, and I use Android because it's the only option on my carrier (its the least repulsive option anyway). But it sucks, and doesn't seem to be getting any better. I think the only reason it is seeing growth like it is is because of cheap hardware, and, as in my case, being the only real option on certain networks.
iOS does over the air app installs. Other than that, yes I agree that Apple needs to do those things.
Oh, and I use Android because it's the only option on my carrier (its the least repulsive option anyway). But it sucks, and doesn't seem to be getting any better. I think the only reason it is seeing growth like it is is because of cheap hardware, and, as in my case, being the only real option on certain networks.
PlipPlop
May 6, 06:27 AM
Wouldn't a new CPU have to be much faster than the equivalent Intel chip to make it worthwhile? Not just equivalent. Wouldn't it have to be able to run previous generation software in emulation for a period of years.
Yes, Arm would have to make significant performance increases. You would need a faster ARM processor than Intel ones if you want to emulate them. So in a year will Arm have a desktop cpu of emulating Intel's current sandybridge processors at a decent speed. I doubt it very much.
Yes, Arm would have to make significant performance increases. You would need a faster ARM processor than Intel ones if you want to emulate them. So in a year will Arm have a desktop cpu of emulating Intel's current sandybridge processors at a decent speed. I doubt it very much.
i.mac
Apr 5, 01:10 PM
Honestly, I hope Toyota tells Apple to stuff it.
Jail break is legal for personal use. Corporate use of jail break may be another thing altogether.
Jail break is legal for personal use. Corporate use of jail break may be another thing altogether.
Thunderhawks
Apr 21, 02:58 PM
Boo...I want it bigger.
No..really...I do. :mad:
Besides Viagra you need to visit some other websites that promise that, not MR.
No..really...I do. :mad:
Besides Viagra you need to visit some other websites that promise that, not MR.
bella92108
Apr 5, 02:09 PM
That ad should be pulled for one reason, it's ugly as sin.
Then pull 90% of themes from cydia... 75% of the wallpapers are some asian chick sitting on the hood of some car the users will never be able to afford. hahaha
Then pull 90% of themes from cydia... 75% of the wallpapers are some asian chick sitting on the hood of some car the users will never be able to afford. hahaha
bella92108
Apr 5, 02:27 PM
I don't see what the big deal is. Of course Apple is going to try to minimize the risk of the jailbreak community. They want to avoid headlines about spyware and such that creep out of the jailbroken community. It's just good PR.
Queue the hitler response.....
And when Hitler's constituents thought he was wrong, he decided to annihilate those who didn't want to see things his way too. Destroying opposition rather than improving one's self is way's a "#WINNING" thing to do.
Wow, I gotta get some credit for that one... Charlie Sheen, Apple, and Hitler all in one sentence!
Queue the hitler response.....
And when Hitler's constituents thought he was wrong, he decided to annihilate those who didn't want to see things his way too. Destroying opposition rather than improving one's self is way's a "#WINNING" thing to do.
Wow, I gotta get some credit for that one... Charlie Sheen, Apple, and Hitler all in one sentence!
Reach9
Mar 27, 01:03 AM
It's actually pretty sad that Android does not have the majority of the market.. They have new phones being released every other week. A 'newer and better' than last weeks. They make their phones go obsolete faster than anything I've ever seen. They released the Nexus One and that was suppose to be their amazing device... Is that even around anymore? Pretty sure like a month later they had a better one out.
Apple has released 4 iPhone's. Android has released more in a months time... And Apple STILL owns the market. They should really be ashamed. Maybe if they actually spent their time working on ONE great device and released it every like 8 months or even every year.. then maybe I could see potential. I refuse to buy an Android device because I know a week later my brand new phone will be old news.
And how does Apple own the market?
Apple has released 4 iPhone's. Android has released more in a months time... And Apple STILL owns the market. They should really be ashamed. Maybe if they actually spent their time working on ONE great device and released it every like 8 months or even every year.. then maybe I could see potential. I refuse to buy an Android device because I know a week later my brand new phone will be old news.
And how does Apple own the market?
peharri
Nov 25, 09:06 PM
Consider this. Let's say Apple does something along the lines we're predicting, and sells their phones. Before we plunk down our money, we go around to the various cell carriers and inquire if they'll let us bring our phone to their network. They say either "NO!" or "Not at this time."
The only mobile carriers in a position to do this are the cdmaOne/CDMA2000 ones (Verizon, Sprint PCS, etc.) If Apple makes a GSM or UMTS phone, the carrier has little or no say in whether you use it. T-Mobile and Cingular will, by next year, be running both types of network in the US, and both already run GSM.
The real influence the cellphone companies (at least, the ones not stuck in the 1980s as far as their network infrastructure goes) have on phone purchasing is the ability to subsidize phones that fit their model. This, in practice, usually means rebranding. Cingular is pretty good on that score and rarely insists on more than some ugly logos printed on the phone (unfortunately their network is not the greatest GSM implementation in the world.) T-Mobile, in my experience, is somewhat worse, though not always for bad reasons. For example, they'd probably insist on "My Faves", a proprietary five person phonebook, being grafted on to whatever UI an "iPhone" has, in return for any substantial subsidy.
The fact Apple can't expect carriers to subsidize their phones is one issue they have to deal with. I'm more concerned though with Apple becoming a minority player, with its phone tied to a music store whose success was, in major part, to do with the giant marketshare it had, and thus Jobs's ability to force the labels to compromise on prices.
What would make absolutely more sense is for Apple to simply start up their own network. They've already acquired some assets in this area, haven't they? So why not bide their time until they can really roll the thing out? And since it is relatively common practice for cell towers to have more than one (sometimes several) carriers' equipment mounted on them, Apple could buy into who's-ever network they needed to get one of the "lesser third party" broadcast equipment sets that's already out there among the masses.
Apple would need not merely infrastructure but spectrum to actually start a carrier. They have neither.
Purchasing a carrier is an interesting pipe dream and would terrify the crap out of most shareholders. Mobile telephony is a long term thing, with very little return on investment yet for most people who've invested in it. It's not even a good time to get involved, most companies are rolling out 3G networks and 4G, in the shape of WiMAX, is already being released in some areas.
Were they to do the carrier thing, the best they could hope for would be to be an MVNO. This would be a major change of business model. It has so many ramifications I don't know where to begin.
The only mobile carriers in a position to do this are the cdmaOne/CDMA2000 ones (Verizon, Sprint PCS, etc.) If Apple makes a GSM or UMTS phone, the carrier has little or no say in whether you use it. T-Mobile and Cingular will, by next year, be running both types of network in the US, and both already run GSM.
The real influence the cellphone companies (at least, the ones not stuck in the 1980s as far as their network infrastructure goes) have on phone purchasing is the ability to subsidize phones that fit their model. This, in practice, usually means rebranding. Cingular is pretty good on that score and rarely insists on more than some ugly logos printed on the phone (unfortunately their network is not the greatest GSM implementation in the world.) T-Mobile, in my experience, is somewhat worse, though not always for bad reasons. For example, they'd probably insist on "My Faves", a proprietary five person phonebook, being grafted on to whatever UI an "iPhone" has, in return for any substantial subsidy.
The fact Apple can't expect carriers to subsidize their phones is one issue they have to deal with. I'm more concerned though with Apple becoming a minority player, with its phone tied to a music store whose success was, in major part, to do with the giant marketshare it had, and thus Jobs's ability to force the labels to compromise on prices.
What would make absolutely more sense is for Apple to simply start up their own network. They've already acquired some assets in this area, haven't they? So why not bide their time until they can really roll the thing out? And since it is relatively common practice for cell towers to have more than one (sometimes several) carriers' equipment mounted on them, Apple could buy into who's-ever network they needed to get one of the "lesser third party" broadcast equipment sets that's already out there among the masses.
Apple would need not merely infrastructure but spectrum to actually start a carrier. They have neither.
Purchasing a carrier is an interesting pipe dream and would terrify the crap out of most shareholders. Mobile telephony is a long term thing, with very little return on investment yet for most people who've invested in it. It's not even a good time to get involved, most companies are rolling out 3G networks and 4G, in the shape of WiMAX, is already being released in some areas.
Were they to do the carrier thing, the best they could hope for would be to be an MVNO. This would be a major change of business model. It has so many ramifications I don't know where to begin.
AZREOSpecialist
Apr 26, 03:18 PM
Baloney on so many levels. Apple doesn't need to be like Android to succeed unless you define success as market share. Market share means nothing if you have the margins like Apple does. Fake Steve Jobs (Dan Lyons) said it best last year. To paraphrase, "In three years Android will be huge but we will still have the better business." And if you want to equate market share to developer interest, well, there are articles all over today announcing that developer interest in Android is waning because of fragmentation and tablets while interest in iOS is rising.
So what's better? More people using your product than the other guy's or having sustainable growth and good profits year in and year out?
Apple makes money on the handset, Google makes money on ad revenue. Apple needs iOS in order to continue growing and remain successful. How much does Google actually make from Android? Probably nothing close to what Apple makes on iOS and related devices. If Google determines that the Android model does not work for them, they have little incentive not to cut and run if the minority of their revenue is coming from that product. Apple has a whole lot more to lose in this game than Google.
While profitability and margins are important, ultimately the game goes to the one with the greatest market share. That has been proven over and over again. Having a huge profit margin means nothing if fewer people buy your product than the competitions'.
So what's better? More people using your product than the other guy's or having sustainable growth and good profits year in and year out?
Apple makes money on the handset, Google makes money on ad revenue. Apple needs iOS in order to continue growing and remain successful. How much does Google actually make from Android? Probably nothing close to what Apple makes on iOS and related devices. If Google determines that the Android model does not work for them, they have little incentive not to cut and run if the minority of their revenue is coming from that product. Apple has a whole lot more to lose in this game than Google.
While profitability and margins are important, ultimately the game goes to the one with the greatest market share. That has been proven over and over again. Having a huge profit margin means nothing if fewer people buy your product than the competitions'.
wonderspark
Apr 5, 05:05 PM
I'm sure some Scion owners think it's pretty cool, and now it will be "even cooler" since it's "banned." I am still on 3.1.2, jailbroken, and seriously doubt anything will compel me to restore and update.
AT&T just sent me a text saying voicemails older than 30 days will be deleted, and if I want to save them, I need to update to iOS 4. Ha, no thanks. Not needed. My phone backgrounds any app I want, the battery lasts long enough, nothing crashes, all my alarms work fine despite daylight savings shifts and New Year glitches, and so on. My GF's iPhone, though... no such luck. She updated, and wishes she hadn't.
AT&T just sent me a text saying voicemails older than 30 days will be deleted, and if I want to save them, I need to update to iOS 4. Ha, no thanks. Not needed. My phone backgrounds any app I want, the battery lasts long enough, nothing crashes, all my alarms work fine despite daylight savings shifts and New Year glitches, and so on. My GF's iPhone, though... no such luck. She updated, and wishes she hadn't.
GFLPraxis
Aug 7, 03:12 PM
LAME
� $2,499 standard price of Mac Pro ($2,299 for Education)
��$2,124 is the lowest you can configure the Mac Pro ($1,962 for Education)
���To get it that low, you have to drop the processors from 2.66GHz to 2GHz and and the hard drive from 250GB to 160GB
It's still a QUAD at $2,124. Even if it's 2 GHz, that's still utterly insane, especially when a *single* 2 GHz Woodcrest outperforms a 3.5 GHz Pentium 4 easily IIRC.
and as a sidenote:
� MacBook Pro & MacBook processors untouched
� iMac untouched
� iPod product line grows more stale by the day
The lack of iMac updates was my greatest disappointment.
� $2,499 standard price of Mac Pro ($2,299 for Education)
��$2,124 is the lowest you can configure the Mac Pro ($1,962 for Education)
���To get it that low, you have to drop the processors from 2.66GHz to 2GHz and and the hard drive from 250GB to 160GB
It's still a QUAD at $2,124. Even if it's 2 GHz, that's still utterly insane, especially when a *single* 2 GHz Woodcrest outperforms a 3.5 GHz Pentium 4 easily IIRC.
and as a sidenote:
� MacBook Pro & MacBook processors untouched
� iMac untouched
� iPod product line grows more stale by the day
The lack of iMac updates was my greatest disappointment.
NebulaClash
May 4, 03:44 PM
So I guess we'll all just send you our AT&T Internet Bills when we go over their newly implemented data usage caps? :eek:
:rolleyes:
Absolutely. Send 'em right over and I'll know precisely what to do with 'em.
Seriously, I don't see why anyone would object. This is merely another option for getting OS X. It adds to our choices. This is not right for you? Use the traditional method. Nobody loses.
:rolleyes:
Absolutely. Send 'em right over and I'll know precisely what to do with 'em.
Seriously, I don't see why anyone would object. This is merely another option for getting OS X. It adds to our choices. This is not right for you? Use the traditional method. Nobody loses.
CalBoy
Apr 15, 12:18 PM
You could be right. I've changed my mind a bunch of times before. But I'd like to hear your explanation for why a lower marginal tax rate has caused more people to enter poverty and unemployment.
Essentially my theory is (and it's not really mine but I've forgotten who deserves credit for it) that as tax rates drop, wealth concentrates and becomes less mobile. The free market ceases to operate because bargaining power, knowledge, and resources are all on one side, eventually causing 95% to be at the whim of the remaining 5.
This was essentially the status quo in places like pre-revolution France. It predominated societies until the reforms of the 20th Century. It was only then that we saw incomes improve for the masses. The historical record clearly shows that higher marginal tax rates are good because they don't allow the rich to rest on their laurels while at the same time helping out the unfortunate (who are then able to more fully participate in the economy).
Essentially my theory is (and it's not really mine but I've forgotten who deserves credit for it) that as tax rates drop, wealth concentrates and becomes less mobile. The free market ceases to operate because bargaining power, knowledge, and resources are all on one side, eventually causing 95% to be at the whim of the remaining 5.
This was essentially the status quo in places like pre-revolution France. It predominated societies until the reforms of the 20th Century. It was only then that we saw incomes improve for the masses. The historical record clearly shows that higher marginal tax rates are good because they don't allow the rich to rest on their laurels while at the same time helping out the unfortunate (who are then able to more fully participate in the economy).