chris975d
Mar 27, 07:07 AM
The rumors talking about the iPad 3 are mostly saying it would be a different model than the current iPad. There's multiple Macbook Pros. Don't be surprised if there are multiple iPads, like an iPad pro.
I, like a few other members here, believe this may be the most likely scenario. People keep talking of a rumored "iPad 3" being launched in the Fall, but I think it might just be a misunderstanding, and it's actually a larger iPod Touch...somewhere in the 5 to 7 inch range. Apple really pushes the touch as a gaming device, and this size (5 to 7 inches) would be great for that. In my opinion, the 3.5" size of the current touch/iPhone makes it hard to game..by the time you put onscreen controls (virtual thumbstick, action buttons, etc), you have very little screen for gameplay left.
I, like a few other members here, believe this may be the most likely scenario. People keep talking of a rumored "iPad 3" being launched in the Fall, but I think it might just be a misunderstanding, and it's actually a larger iPod Touch...somewhere in the 5 to 7 inch range. Apple really pushes the touch as a gaming device, and this size (5 to 7 inches) would be great for that. In my opinion, the 3.5" size of the current touch/iPhone makes it hard to game..by the time you put onscreen controls (virtual thumbstick, action buttons, etc), you have very little screen for gameplay left.
~Shard~
Aug 12, 09:11 AM
So you think Penryn pairs may be the 4 core mobile solution in 2008?
Possibly, although if Intel keeps moving along is may more likely end up being Penryn's successor. ;) ;cool:
Possibly, although if Intel keeps moving along is may more likely end up being Penryn's successor. ;) ;cool:
ravenvii
May 3, 11:35 AM
Hmm, interesting. I'm not eligible since I didn't play in Intell's last game, but this looks like fun.
No, you mis-read, I meant you must have played in at least three games. Intell's last game is counted if you played in that one. I edited the part to hopefully make it more clear. When I wrote it, Intell's game wasn't over.
You've played in *way* more than three games, so you're in if you want.
No, you mis-read, I meant you must have played in at least three games. Intell's last game is counted if you played in that one. I edited the part to hopefully make it more clear. When I wrote it, Intell's game wasn't over.
You've played in *way* more than three games, so you're in if you want.
scottwaugh
Apr 20, 08:22 AM
to really stay ahead of the market Apple will need to:
add a 4" screen
keep the same form factor
add the dual core A5 processor
update the GPU to something similar (but most likely not as powerful) as in the iPad 2
....
The GPU is integrated into the A5 processor, anything the A5 goes into will get the iPad 2 GPU as well - means serious graphics power into the iPhone 5 and Apple TV as they are updated with the A5.
add a 4" screen
keep the same form factor
add the dual core A5 processor
update the GPU to something similar (but most likely not as powerful) as in the iPad 2
....
The GPU is integrated into the A5 processor, anything the A5 goes into will get the iPad 2 GPU as well - means serious graphics power into the iPhone 5 and Apple TV as they are updated with the A5.
toddybody
Apr 7, 01:00 PM
it was a joke in reference to your snarky comment relax.
Hey bro look on the bright side atleast we have bing now on appstore!
Thanks for the good news pal:) Ha ha!
PS: and this is my last rant on the subject...the 1199 vs 1799 is a big diference, no question... but that isnt attributable to a discrete GPU. Youre talking a larger footprint (more alum/mobo/battery/etc), bigger display with higher res, CPU bump, and HDD. All Im saying is that at 1199, Apple should bless it's entire MBP line with discrete GPU's (didnt say it had to be a 430m with 2GB of VRAM)...save the integrated for MBA/MB
Have a great afternoon!
Hey bro look on the bright side atleast we have bing now on appstore!
Thanks for the good news pal:) Ha ha!
PS: and this is my last rant on the subject...the 1199 vs 1799 is a big diference, no question... but that isnt attributable to a discrete GPU. Youre talking a larger footprint (more alum/mobo/battery/etc), bigger display with higher res, CPU bump, and HDD. All Im saying is that at 1199, Apple should bless it's entire MBP line with discrete GPU's (didnt say it had to be a 430m with 2GB of VRAM)...save the integrated for MBA/MB
Have a great afternoon!
rdlink
Apr 21, 09:12 PM
And how do you operate it? A server can be accessed from a workstation but a Mac Pro IS a workstation, it's not a server. It's not a logical step. I have a professional photographer in the family, with a Mac Pro. He needs to load his RAWs onto his Mac for post processing. How to do this if that Mac is in another room, in a rack :confused: Very inconvenient if you ask me.
Not sure you quite get it. The idea here would be that the one machine could be used either as a workstation, or as a server. You could use it in a SOHO situation as a workstation/under the desk server. An enterprise could configure it as a rack mounted server. One assembly line. Two products.
Not sure you quite get it. The idea here would be that the one machine could be used either as a workstation, or as a server. You could use it in a SOHO situation as a workstation/under the desk server. An enterprise could configure it as a rack mounted server. One assembly line. Two products.
Tapiwa
Apr 20, 06:56 AM
This model promises to be one that many will pass on.
I certainly will.
Even though it's already well known that it will have a better antenna to fix the antennagate issue that most everyone denied.
The lack of a fresh new look will keep me away, especially retaining the tiny screen. Seems like Apples coasting this time around.
A faster processor? Big deal, who needs it, a waste of money just to pump up Apples coffers.
A true disappointment, this one is. I was so eager to dump my antennagate special.
The nice thing this time around is that everyone seems to have such low expectations that Apple can only meet or exceed them :D
I certainly will.
Even though it's already well known that it will have a better antenna to fix the antennagate issue that most everyone denied.
The lack of a fresh new look will keep me away, especially retaining the tiny screen. Seems like Apples coasting this time around.
A faster processor? Big deal, who needs it, a waste of money just to pump up Apples coffers.
A true disappointment, this one is. I was so eager to dump my antennagate special.
The nice thing this time around is that everyone seems to have such low expectations that Apple can only meet or exceed them :D
KnightWRX
Apr 24, 09:37 AM
Yes, an iMac needs to have a 7xxx Display to be retina...as it's viewing distance shouldn't be what the iP4 is.
You contradict yourself here. A 27" iMac is probably already retina, considering the viewing distance should be around 30" away.
As the distance grows, the PPI treshold to achieve the "retina" effect of "Eye can't distinguish the individual pixels" becomes lower. Given enough distance, 48 PPI can be enough to be dubbed "retina display" (your standard 50" 1080p TV).
Is 25,600,000 bytes (25.6 MB) x 60 Hz not equal to 1,536,000,000 bytes.
Correct me if I am wrong.
No, you're not wrong. But I'm not either. I'll let you figure out why (think about the lower case b in Mbps vs MB of RAM ;) ). Unless I'm misinterpreting something, I doubt DP 1.2 can push out 21 gigaBYTES of data per second...
As for the 6990 listing that as max resolution, I'm betting that has more to do with current LCD display limitation (that is the max resolutions you'll find on an LCD monitor) than with actual hardware limitation. The hardware is capable of more than that. Some of these cards with a single GPU have 2-4 DP outputs capable of driving 2-4 of these 2560x1600 monitors. The GPU itself doesn't a problem pushing out these pixels and DP 1.2 makes it so they can push it over a single connection.
I look forward to the day that Apple releases retina displays for the MBP. Something else that would set :apple: apart.
Sony was there first with the Vaio Z. 13.3", 1920x1080 baby. If it weren't so expensive it would be mine and I'd be back to running Linux.
You contradict yourself here. A 27" iMac is probably already retina, considering the viewing distance should be around 30" away.
As the distance grows, the PPI treshold to achieve the "retina" effect of "Eye can't distinguish the individual pixels" becomes lower. Given enough distance, 48 PPI can be enough to be dubbed "retina display" (your standard 50" 1080p TV).
Is 25,600,000 bytes (25.6 MB) x 60 Hz not equal to 1,536,000,000 bytes.
Correct me if I am wrong.
No, you're not wrong. But I'm not either. I'll let you figure out why (think about the lower case b in Mbps vs MB of RAM ;) ). Unless I'm misinterpreting something, I doubt DP 1.2 can push out 21 gigaBYTES of data per second...
As for the 6990 listing that as max resolution, I'm betting that has more to do with current LCD display limitation (that is the max resolutions you'll find on an LCD monitor) than with actual hardware limitation. The hardware is capable of more than that. Some of these cards with a single GPU have 2-4 DP outputs capable of driving 2-4 of these 2560x1600 monitors. The GPU itself doesn't a problem pushing out these pixels and DP 1.2 makes it so they can push it over a single connection.
I look forward to the day that Apple releases retina displays for the MBP. Something else that would set :apple: apart.
Sony was there first with the Vaio Z. 13.3", 1920x1080 baby. If it weren't so expensive it would be mine and I'd be back to running Linux.
WildCowboy
Jul 21, 01:54 PM
This definitely increases the chances of Apple introducing new MBPs at WWDC. Could be a huge event!
My PB is only a year and half old, but Merom-based MBPs are looking awfully tempting...
My PB is only a year and half old, but Merom-based MBPs are looking awfully tempting...
jav6454
Mar 28, 09:59 AM
Every year we get people saying we are and we are not getting new hardware updates.
Like an arrow shot in the air, the target is always a hit and miss.
Like an arrow shot in the air, the target is always a hit and miss.
joefarrell86
Mar 26, 10:46 PM
In the keynote, didn't Jobs say 2011 was the year of the iPad 2? I thought that pretty much smashed the rumors of an iPad 3 this year.
Mac Fly (film)
Jul 21, 03:08 PM
the macbook was released mid may 06. so i would expect some update in october given the fast processor updates.
certainly a good time for mac users.:)
For sure, they might even announce something at WWDC?
certainly a good time for mac users.:)
For sure, they might even announce something at WWDC?
Cavepainter
Mar 30, 02:36 PM
I hardly think $1 for 20 gigabytes of available anywhere storage is very unreasonable.
Maybe that rate wouldn't be bad, but if you read the article, that's not what they're charging. Beyond the initial free amount, its $1 per 1 gig, not $1 per 20 gigs. A terabyte per year is a thousand dollars a year. That's not too cheap. And this isn't including bandwidth usage, which is gonna cost money too, of course. Plus, what do you think, are these rates and bandwidth usage costs gonna be higher or lower in the future?
They (banks) aren't storing physical cash somewhere anymore, it's all just a line of electronic code that states what your balance is.
Well, it actually it still exists as money, but of course banks aren't storing it all in a vault- they're loaning it out to other people, at rates 10 to 100 times greater than the interest rate they are offering you for using that money- and they're using your money to make them money. I'm sure they could loan out money at much lower rates and still do fine, but that's what we're used to paying, so there you go. But anyway, back on track-
If you want premium content, you pay for it.
That premium content you're happy to be paying lots of money for is actually making the provider plenty of money on the back end too- remember cable and satellite television still has plenty of advertisements. Again, they could probably charge you a third of what you currently pay and it would still be profitable. (I'm just sayin'...)
People just think it's ridiculous to spend money on music because avenues have popped up where you can get it for free.
True, but for me, no, I actually buy my music and support the artists- I just think its ridiculous to buy my music and pay someone else over and over and over again, forever, just to be able listen to it.
I have 2 computers at home, a laptop, a phone that has storage, a DVR, even my Xbox can store music files..... How nice to be able to visit my parents, or go on vacation, or be at a friend's house, log on to their computer, and have my entire music library instantly available at my fingertips.
80 gigs of music in a computer's memory doesn't actually "weigh" all that much. You can have all those files right there on your devices right now, unless you have terabytes of things to store. As storage continues to grow on computers, I think you'll find that the prices will be more and more appealing for larger and larger amounts of storage.
Look, I understand your points, and if you have multiple platforms that need to share and sync enormous amounts of files, that can be a challenge and the cloud would be convenient. But for the amount of music and photography and other files I have and the way I would store it and access it, I personally would rather just have all the files I need right there on my computer at my fingertips without having to pay someone to access it from a remote location. You're certainly free to spend money to access things you already purchased, but its not for me. To each their own.
Maybe that rate wouldn't be bad, but if you read the article, that's not what they're charging. Beyond the initial free amount, its $1 per 1 gig, not $1 per 20 gigs. A terabyte per year is a thousand dollars a year. That's not too cheap. And this isn't including bandwidth usage, which is gonna cost money too, of course. Plus, what do you think, are these rates and bandwidth usage costs gonna be higher or lower in the future?
They (banks) aren't storing physical cash somewhere anymore, it's all just a line of electronic code that states what your balance is.
Well, it actually it still exists as money, but of course banks aren't storing it all in a vault- they're loaning it out to other people, at rates 10 to 100 times greater than the interest rate they are offering you for using that money- and they're using your money to make them money. I'm sure they could loan out money at much lower rates and still do fine, but that's what we're used to paying, so there you go. But anyway, back on track-
If you want premium content, you pay for it.
That premium content you're happy to be paying lots of money for is actually making the provider plenty of money on the back end too- remember cable and satellite television still has plenty of advertisements. Again, they could probably charge you a third of what you currently pay and it would still be profitable. (I'm just sayin'...)
People just think it's ridiculous to spend money on music because avenues have popped up where you can get it for free.
True, but for me, no, I actually buy my music and support the artists- I just think its ridiculous to buy my music and pay someone else over and over and over again, forever, just to be able listen to it.
I have 2 computers at home, a laptop, a phone that has storage, a DVR, even my Xbox can store music files..... How nice to be able to visit my parents, or go on vacation, or be at a friend's house, log on to their computer, and have my entire music library instantly available at my fingertips.
80 gigs of music in a computer's memory doesn't actually "weigh" all that much. You can have all those files right there on your devices right now, unless you have terabytes of things to store. As storage continues to grow on computers, I think you'll find that the prices will be more and more appealing for larger and larger amounts of storage.
Look, I understand your points, and if you have multiple platforms that need to share and sync enormous amounts of files, that can be a challenge and the cloud would be convenient. But for the amount of music and photography and other files I have and the way I would store it and access it, I personally would rather just have all the files I need right there on my computer at my fingertips without having to pay someone to access it from a remote location. You're certainly free to spend money to access things you already purchased, but its not for me. To each their own.
Don't panic
May 5, 11:35 AM
are we ready to move to the next room? anyone wants to split out for whatever reason?
mcrain
Apr 15, 09:02 AM
Do you think there are any negative consequences to this? If I were starting a business and seeking investors, it would sure be a lot harder to get investors when the capital gains rate is 35% rather than 15%. That business would never materialize. Nobody's going to complain about it though because no one can see what could have been.
No.
Capital gains do NOT stand in the way of investment in business. Why? Because capital gains ONLY apply to the gains realized upon the SALE of the shares or ownership interest in the company. That sale has ZERO effect on the business' profit, capitalization, available resources, etc... That sale ONLY might have an effect on the value of the shares of the company in the hands of other investors. That's what is called the secondary market.
What you are talking about is the initial offering of the shares by the company in which the company is looking to exchange ownership, and everything that goes with it, for capital investment.
One of the things that goes with ownership, and one of the two primary reasons people invest, is a share of profits. If a potential business has a good business plan, a good product and will make money, people will invest in it. When it makes money, that income is taxed as ordinary income when distributed, or if kept without re-investment, as business income. This money is NOT taxed as capital gain!
The second profit motive for investment is the idea that the success of the business will generate demand for ownership, thus increasing the value of ownership on the secondary market. This could lead to capital gains if you choose to sell your ownership interest.
Higher taxes result in businesses that choose to reinvest and increase their operations rather than distributing money to its owners. This causes increases in value, increases in operations, increases in hiring, increases in economic impact, etc...
Higher taxes result in investors choosing businesses that are increasing in value, generating higher income rates, operating in riskier, but higher yield, fields, etc...
Capital gains don't prevent investment, they merely affect how much tax is paid on the sale of an investment you have held for over one year.
No.
Capital gains do NOT stand in the way of investment in business. Why? Because capital gains ONLY apply to the gains realized upon the SALE of the shares or ownership interest in the company. That sale has ZERO effect on the business' profit, capitalization, available resources, etc... That sale ONLY might have an effect on the value of the shares of the company in the hands of other investors. That's what is called the secondary market.
What you are talking about is the initial offering of the shares by the company in which the company is looking to exchange ownership, and everything that goes with it, for capital investment.
One of the things that goes with ownership, and one of the two primary reasons people invest, is a share of profits. If a potential business has a good business plan, a good product and will make money, people will invest in it. When it makes money, that income is taxed as ordinary income when distributed, or if kept without re-investment, as business income. This money is NOT taxed as capital gain!
The second profit motive for investment is the idea that the success of the business will generate demand for ownership, thus increasing the value of ownership on the secondary market. This could lead to capital gains if you choose to sell your ownership interest.
Higher taxes result in businesses that choose to reinvest and increase their operations rather than distributing money to its owners. This causes increases in value, increases in operations, increases in hiring, increases in economic impact, etc...
Higher taxes result in investors choosing businesses that are increasing in value, generating higher income rates, operating in riskier, but higher yield, fields, etc...
Capital gains don't prevent investment, they merely affect how much tax is paid on the sale of an investment you have held for over one year.
nuckinfutz
May 7, 10:53 AM
We all remember the internal meeting Jobs held discussing how Google was in effect 'declaring war on Apple' by invading their "mobile" turf; what if this is Apple reciprocating. Offering similar options to Gmail for free and attempting to complement MobileMe with iAds in an attempt to unthrone Google. With the high hopes Apple has for iAds (as suggested by the rumors regarding the high developer pricing of iAds) it does make sense, and in the very least, try to hurt Google. Another intriguing question is: would Apple loyalists prefer Apple service over another as long as the quality is acceptable (perhaps even if the quality was less than the options, at first).
Apple has been doing this stuff since .mac so they've been on the turf for a while. iAds is not gonna be a part of the equation. Apple's building a huge datacenter in NC and with free Mobileme it gives developers a "no brainer" incentive to use Mobileme for their OTA sync. Wifi sync does nothing but irritate the user IMO.
This isn't about hurting Google this is about taking the next leap forward in computing by melding cloud services with mobile and desktop computing
Why not just make it a $20 product instead of giving it away for no profit?
Because Free always has better uptake as witnessed by the legions of people that let Google scrape their emails and other data to provide targeted ads. These people actually perceive this as being "Free" when in fact you're letting Google profit handsomely off your data.
Apple has been doing this stuff since .mac so they've been on the turf for a while. iAds is not gonna be a part of the equation. Apple's building a huge datacenter in NC and with free Mobileme it gives developers a "no brainer" incentive to use Mobileme for their OTA sync. Wifi sync does nothing but irritate the user IMO.
This isn't about hurting Google this is about taking the next leap forward in computing by melding cloud services with mobile and desktop computing
Why not just make it a $20 product instead of giving it away for no profit?
Because Free always has better uptake as witnessed by the legions of people that let Google scrape their emails and other data to provide targeted ads. These people actually perceive this as being "Free" when in fact you're letting Google profit handsomely off your data.
PlipPlop
Apr 26, 03:26 PM
I wonder if there will be 400k new Android phone a day soon. The power of Android cannot be stopped now.
3N16MA
Mar 28, 11:59 AM
If this is true and Apple decided to hold off until later in the year I'm expecting a big change for the iPhone 5. If it's going to be a 3G --->3Gs type of upgrade (same design/form facor, new internals) I don't see why they would not be ready this June.
CalBoy
Apr 15, 01:45 AM
Do you think there are any negative consequences to this? If I were starting a business and seeking investors, it would sure be a lot harder to get investors when the capital gains rate is 35% rather than 15%. That business would never materialize. Nobody's going to complain about it though because no one can see what could have been. The people who would have worked there can't complain the way an autoworker or public school teacher can complain. It's okay, it's not like we need jobs or anything. Let's just raise taxes enough on the top 1% of earners to employ everyone looking for a job. We can have them built a high speed rail network across the country. The only snag is our country would collapse before finishing one route. We would have a scattering of tracks as a reminder of our incompetence.
There's also positives that come along with this as well. If higher capital gains were able to support things like universal healthcare and better education, then more individuals would not only be able to innovate, but also take the risk on themselves because failure wouldn't mean dying as a pauper on the streets.
Our current tax system only encourages rewarding those who already have plenty. It does nothing for the small business owner that might lose his shirt if the business fails. We live in a land of extremes; you're either extremely wealthy or teetering on the brink of insolvency. That isn't the recipe for a successful society.
You're also operating from a false premise. Investors would continue to invest in whatever had the best returns. When you raise taxes across the board, all alternatives have the same tax exposure, which means the previously best option will remain the best option.
Unless you're seriously suggesting that a 35% (or higher) tax rate is really going to cause all billionaires to sit on their money and earn a lower return, just to stick it to Uncle Sam.
There's also positives that come along with this as well. If higher capital gains were able to support things like universal healthcare and better education, then more individuals would not only be able to innovate, but also take the risk on themselves because failure wouldn't mean dying as a pauper on the streets.
Our current tax system only encourages rewarding those who already have plenty. It does nothing for the small business owner that might lose his shirt if the business fails. We live in a land of extremes; you're either extremely wealthy or teetering on the brink of insolvency. That isn't the recipe for a successful society.
You're also operating from a false premise. Investors would continue to invest in whatever had the best returns. When you raise taxes across the board, all alternatives have the same tax exposure, which means the previously best option will remain the best option.
Unless you're seriously suggesting that a 35% (or higher) tax rate is really going to cause all billionaires to sit on their money and earn a lower return, just to stick it to Uncle Sam.
NoNothing
Apr 6, 05:15 PM
No matter what Apple does lately or how much they sell or how good the forecasts are for sales Apple Stock continues it quick downward slide. What the HELL!! I just do not understand it ... Specially while Google stock continues to climb at an incredible pace week, after week, after week.. :confused::confused::mad:
Are you looking at the same AAPL and GOOG I have been? Really? Are you sure?
You might be in Bazaro Universe? Look at the 1 week, 2 week, 1 month, 3 month, 6 month, 1 year and 2 year trends. AAPL is looking pretty sweet.
Are you looking at the same AAPL and GOOG I have been? Really? Are you sure?
You might be in Bazaro Universe? Look at the 1 week, 2 week, 1 month, 3 month, 6 month, 1 year and 2 year trends. AAPL is looking pretty sweet.
finalcut
Apr 20, 05:58 AM
if the faster processor is the only upgrade, then I wont change my iphone 4 to 5 just like I did from 3G to 3GS. My wife will just wait more on my iphone 4 hehe
Zeromus
Aug 12, 10:22 AM
After ordering a MBP when they were announced and then returning 4 defective units before demanding my money back, I'm going to do the same stupid thing and buy the first Merom MBP I can...
Glutton for punishment? *sigh*
Glutton for punishment? *sigh*
marksman
Apr 18, 04:18 PM
I think they are all adults, and they keep these things very separate. If someone said to their colleagues in another department "don't buy screens from Samsung, we are involved in a lawsuit" or "don't sell screens to Apple, we are involved in a lawsuit", the answer would be "are you mad? They are our best supplier, I don't care about any lawsuit" or "are you mad? They are our best customer, I don't care about any lawsuit".
I guarantee you that the division that sells screens to apple is pissed about this, and that Apple tried to work on this internally with Samsung before filing suit.
I know how different divisions of large corporations interact, and I guarantee you the divison making smartphones and tablets are at odds with the screen supplying over this and whatever else.
People that run large divisions often don't care about the other divisions and are only worried about themselves, even if it screws other parts of the company over.
The customer has the leverage in this situation and pissing them off is just a really bad idea.
Believing that Apple wouldn't change suppliers is just ignorant. This is the kind of thing that gives them motivation to start pushing harder with other companies to create screens for them, because Samsung has become an unreliable partner. Instead of just being happy with their relationship, Samsung has jeopardized it and given Apple motivation to look for other partners.
It has put the long term business of selling that many screens to Apple in jeopardy.
I guarantee you that the division that sells screens to apple is pissed about this, and that Apple tried to work on this internally with Samsung before filing suit.
I know how different divisions of large corporations interact, and I guarantee you the divison making smartphones and tablets are at odds with the screen supplying over this and whatever else.
People that run large divisions often don't care about the other divisions and are only worried about themselves, even if it screws other parts of the company over.
The customer has the leverage in this situation and pissing them off is just a really bad idea.
Believing that Apple wouldn't change suppliers is just ignorant. This is the kind of thing that gives them motivation to start pushing harder with other companies to create screens for them, because Samsung has become an unreliable partner. Instead of just being happy with their relationship, Samsung has jeopardized it and given Apple motivation to look for other partners.
It has put the long term business of selling that many screens to Apple in jeopardy.
McGiord
Apr 10, 11:20 AM
Ok then you do not know how to follow the order of operations....ie if you want 2, you have to have another set of parenthesis (so you evaluate it before dividing) or mistakenly think that multiplication somehow supersedes the use of division
Please go back and read my previous posts.
Please go back and read my previous posts.